SURINDERJIT SINGH Vs. SOHAN SINGH MOTI AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents, Sohan Singh, from dispossessing him from the ground and basement portion of the shop-cum-flat No. 11, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh and simultaneously moved an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, for issuing an ad interim injunction to the same effect. According to the averments in the plaint the plaintiff was in possession in the capacity of a co-owner having 1/3rd share and the order of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority ordering his ejectment holding him a sub-tenant was void and ineffective against his rights. The defence set up was that Sohan Singh, respondent, was the sole owner and the plaintiff was only a benamidar to the extent of 1/3 share. It was further pleaded that the ground floor and the basement had been let out to Mrs. Surinder Kaur wife of the plaintiff and the lease deed bears his attestations. The trial court found that there was no prima facie case established in favour of the plaintiff and declined the application. Its order having been confirmed on appeal by the learned Senior Sub Judge, the plaintiff has come up in this revision.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner laid great stress on the title deed and argued that till the defendant substantiates the plea that he was only a benamidar, the plaintiff is prima facie proved to be the owner to the extent of 1/3rd share in the property in dispute. It is not advisable to make any observation on this matter at this stage. However, as the plaintiff had acknowledged Sohan Singh to be the owner and attested the lease deed which his wife, Smt. Surinder Kaur executed, it cannot be said that the view taken by the two Courts below is such as to call for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by this Court. Even if the order may be erroneous it would not be open to revision because no error or jurisdiction or irregularity or illegality in the exercise of the jurisdiction could be pointed out. This petition consequently must fail and is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.