NEHA CHAUDHARY Vs. MADAN MOHAN HURIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF-Neha Chaudhary has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, having failed in both the Courts below to secure temporary injunction.

(2.) PLAINTIFF filed suit alleging that she is tenant in the disputed property under the defendant-respondent since 14.12.2008 and she paid advance rent for two months till 13.02.2009. On 05.02.2009, she was giving rent to the defendant for the next month, but he refused to receive the same. Rent was sent by money order, but it was also refused. Rent was deposited by the plaintiff by moving application under Section 6A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short, the Rent Act), but the said application was withdrawn. The defendant allegedly tried to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly from the suit property compelling the plaintiff to file suit for permanent injunction. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff sought temporary injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property and from interfering in her possession thereon.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat vide impugned order dated 06.10.2009 Annexure P-1 dismissed the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. Appeal preferred against the same by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat vide impugned judgment dated 11.10.2010 Annexure P-2. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.