(1.) HEARD Mr. N. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. Yangi learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1.
(2.) THE pleaded case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that she is the proprietor of a departmental Shop under the name and style of M/s Saurabh Departmental Store situated at Quallapatty, G. S. Road, Shillong, who executed the tenancy agreement on 01. 10. 2004 with the proforma-respondent for a period of 9 (nine) months with the rent payable at Rs. 4500/- per month. On the basis of the said agreement, the petitioner/plaintiff has been occupying/possessing the shop premises and she has been running her business peacefully by paying monthly rent of Rs. 4500/- p. m to the proforma-respondent. On expiry of the said tenancy agreement, a fresh agreement was executed with the proforma-respondent on 01. 07. 2006 for another period of 2 years at the enhanced rent of Rs. 5000/- p. m. and accordingly, she was continuing her business in the said shop premises by paying the enhanced monthly rent of Rs. 5000/- p. m. regularly. But suddenly, on 31. 07. 2005, the respondent No. 1 along with proforma-respondent (landlord) came to the shop premises and asked the petitioner to vacate the shop premises by force but they failed to do so and locked the shop premises. The petitioner informed the local police about the incident but they declined to interfere on the plea that the dispute was in the civil nature and suggested her to approach the civil court for necessary protection.
(3.) AGAINST the said order of ad interim injunction dated 03. 08. 2005, the respondent-defendant filed an application under Order 39, Rule 4 of the CPC for vacating the said order of ad interim injunction and the copy of the said application was served on the petitioner on 21. 08. 2005 only without any formal notice as to when the matter is fixed for show cause or hearing and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to file rejoinder to the said application. The learned Court of Asistant to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, by an order dated 13. 09. 2005 kept the order of ad interim injunction dated 03. 08. 2005 in abeyance till disposal the application of the petitioner. Thereafter, the application filed by the respondent-defendant was finally heard on 30. 09. 2005 by the learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner and rejected the prayer for vacation of the ad interim order dated 03. 08. 2005 by a speaking order. The learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner fixed a date on 20. 10. 2005 for filing show cause reply by the respondent-defendant against the injunction petition and the respodent failed to file show cause reply inspite of reasonable opportunities given to him. The learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 20. 10. 2005 made the ad interim order of injunction dated 03. 08. 2005 absolute till disposal of the main Title Suit.