ARUN KHURMI Vs. SANJANA SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dtd. 15/1/2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, whereby application moved by the petitioner under Sec. 41(h) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Sec. 9 and Sec. 151 CPC, has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts as culled out from the petition are that respondent No.1-plaintiff (hereinafter called, "plaintiff") filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and respondent No.2 herein (hereinafter called, "defendants") from making any additional alteration, causing any damage, change in the nature of the property and raising any type of construction and even installation of shutter etc. without the consent of the plaintiff in the shop part of the property bearing No.B-1-810/3, F/2, Prem Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, with specific boundaries as mentioned in the headnote of the plaint. The suit was filed on the ground that the plaintiff purchased the said property from Shri Raj Kishan son of Shri Sham Lal vide registered sale deed dtd. 13/2/2013 and at that time, possession of the property was given to the plaintiff. At the time of purchasing the property, defendant No.1- Arun Khurmi, petitioner herein, was tenant in the shop at a monthly rent of Rs.7,000.00. He took the property for the office of Lawyer. He paid rent to the plaintiff only for the month of February and March, 2013. Lateron, he lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff was residing with her husband at Chandigarh and used to come to Ludhiana to see her mother-in-law. Defendant No.1, without the consent/writing of plaintiff, sublet the property to defendant No.2, who was running a Milk Booth in the shop in dispute and has started getting rent from defendant No.2 @ Rs.12,000.00 per month.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No.1 has argued that remedy to seek eviction on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant is provided under the Punjab Rent Act and the plaintiff has already filed a petition for ejectment. So, suit is barred by the provisions of Sec. 41(h) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Sec. 9 of CPC. It is submitted that defendant No.1 is in possession of suit property not as a tenant of the plaintiff but in his own right on the basis of agreement to sell dtd. 14/6/1995 entered by Raj Krishan Berry with the father of defendant No.1. The entire amount of consideration had already been paid, so suit is not maintainable. Reliance is placed on Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Ranipur, Haridwar Versus Sanjay Paliwal and another, 2012(65) R.C.R. (Civil) 190, an authority of Uttarakhand High Court; M/s Deepika Constructions by its Proprietor Versus L.V. Rajendran, Law Finder Doc Id # 2035541, an authority of Madras High Court.