(1.) The defendant- petitioner is daughter-in-law of plaintiffrespondents No.1 and 2. The plaintiff- respondents have filed a suit for declaration that defendant-petitioner has got no right to reside and use any portion of house No.108, Sector 23-A, Chandigarh as plaintiff- respondent No.1 is the exclusive owner of the said house, besides seeking a mandatory injunction directing the defendant- petitioner to vacate the premises belonging to the plaintiffs on providing of a reasonable and suitable accommodation to the petitioner during the pendency of the suit. The defendant- petitioner is in possession of one bed room which is shown as ABCD in the site plan. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for interim mandatory injunction has been filed by the plaintiff- respondents for a direction to the defendant- petitioner to vacate the premises on providing of a reasonable and suitable alternative accommodation to the defendant during the pendency of the case.
(2.) The trial Court vide order dated May 27, 2011 passed an adinterim mandatory injunction order directing the defendant- petitioner to vacate the portion of the house in her possession on their providing alternative reasonable accommodation to her during the pendency of the case, taking into consideration the fact that the defendant- petitioner is none-else but daughter-in-law of the plaintiffs whose son has left for Australia leaving her to live with his parents.
(3.) In an appeal filed by defendant- petitioner, the lower Appellate Court vide order dated October 7, 2011 held that it is none of the liabilities of the plaintiff respondents to provide alternative accommodation to the defendant as defendant is otherwise a working lady and must be possessed of all the means to maintain herself and her residence and that prima facie, the parents-in-law of petitioner have got no liability to provide accommodation to defendant as such allowed the appeal directing the defendant- petitioner to vacate the room marked ABCD in the site plan.