MAN SINGH SAINI Vs. KULWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition by defendant- petitioner against order dated May 15, 2009 vide which an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC filed by plaintiff- respondent No.1 for interim injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering in the possession of the suit premises has been allowed setting aside the order of the trial Court dated May 6, 2009 dismissing the application for interim injunction.

(2.) THE petitioner is defendant No.1 in a suit filed by plaintiff respondent No.1, respondents No.2 and 3 are defendants No.2 and 3 respectively (co-defendants with petitioner) whereas respondent No.4 is SHO of the Police Station of the area in which the plaintiff- respondent No.1 has filed the suit. The plaintiff- respondent No.1 is the only contesting respondent in this case at this stage. The plaintiff- respondent No.1 had filed a suit for injunction against the defendants for restraining them from interfering in his peaceful possession, use and occupation of suit premises which is ground floor and basement portion of SCO No. 45, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh, claiming that defendant- respondent No.2 was doing wine and liquor business in the premises in dispute under L-2 license issued by the office of Excise and Taxation Commissioner, U.T. Chandigarh, in the name of defendant No.1- petitioner, whereas plaintiff- respondent No.1 w.e.f. April 2, 2009 took the premises in dispute on lease from defendant No.3, the land-owner under a lease agreement dated April 2,2009. It is claimed by plaintiff- respondent No.1 that peaceful vacant physical possession of the suit premises was also delivered to the plaintiff respondent No.1 on April 2, 2009 by defendant No.3 as such plaintiff respondent No.1 acquired the exclusive possession for use and occupation of the suit premises. The plaintiff claimed that the petitioner in collusion with defendant- respondent No.2 and defendant- respondent No.4 started harassing the plaintiff, threatening to interfere with the peaceful possession, use and occupation of the premises and sought to dispossess the plaintiff illegally and forcibly. Plaintiff claimed that cause of action arose to him on April 4, 2009 when the petitioner alongwith defendant No.2 threatened the plaintiff to interfere in his peaceful possession and made an attempt to forcibly oust him. A complaint was lodged by the plaintiff- respondent No.1 with the police. The plaintiff- respondent also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction for restraining the petitioner and other defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession, use and occupation of the suit premises or to forcibly dispossess him otherwise than in due course of law. The petitioner- defendant No.1 filed a written statement taking up the plea that the premises in dispute was let out by the owner defendant No.3 to defendants No.1 and 2 vide lease deed dated April 1, 2007 for running liquor vend. The names of petitioner and defendant No.2 were mentioned as lessees in the lease deed. After execution of the lease deed, while the petitioner and defendant No.2 were in the process of filing the application to obtain the license of liquor vend from Excise and Taxation Department, defendant No.2 disclosed that he was a proclaimed offender in some criminal case, as such the license of the liquor vend of the premises in dispute was granted in the name of the petitioner- defendant No.1 by the Department of Excise and Taxation, U.T. Vide license which was valid w.e.f. April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008, business of liquor vend was started by the petitioner as sole proprietor in the premises and he regularly paid the rent of the premises to the owner. The license was renewed for subsequent year by depositing a requisite fee of Rs.25 lacs on February 28, 2008 and the license was extended by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, U.T. Chandigarh, in the name of petitioner till March 31, 2009. The petitioner again applied for renewal of license for a further period of one year. The license was further renewed for a year ending on March 31, 2010. As per the policy, the petitioner was to remove the liquor in the evening on March 31, 2009 lying in the premises but the remaining articles which included racks, freezers, counters, tables, chairs and kitchen articles, remain in the premises. Defendant No.2 colluded with the landlord and played a mischief regarding which the petitioner made a complaint to SSP, Chandigarh, for providing security at the premises. The petitioner had deposited Rs.6.25 lacs towards the renewal fee for the year ending Mach 31, 2010. Instead of providing police security to the petitioner at the premises, the police connived with the landlord and the plaintiff and defendant No.2 and he was involved in a criminal case bearing FIR No. 31 dated April 11, 2008 and locks were put on the premises in dispute while the articles of the petitioner were lying in the premises which are owned by the petitioner. The petitioner had written a letter dated April 6, 2009 to the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner narrating the facts.

(3.) THE trial Court vide order dated May 6, 2009 dismissed the application of the plaintiff- respondent No.1 for grant of interim injunction and directed the plaintiff- respondent No.1 to handover the possession of the premises in question to the petitioner by removing the locks put on the doors of the premises in question, relying upon the rights of the petitioner as a tenant w.e.f. April 1, 2007 and on the basis of the documents in the shape of L-2 license issued by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Chandigarh, which was renewed third time till March 31, 2010. The lease deed dated April 2, 2009 relied upon by the plaintiff- respondent was disbelieved as the terms of the lease deed that the premises will be used for liquor vend seemed to be in contradiction with the absence of license in favour of the plaintiff- respondent No.1. When the order dated May 6, 2009 was not complied with, another application was filed for implementation of the order. Vide order dated May 11,2009, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, ordered the police help to the petitioner to get the possession restored by breaking open the locks and doors of the basement and ground floor of the premises in dispute. In an appeal filed by the plaintiff respondent No.1, the District Judge, Chandigarh reversed the order of refusal of interim injunction to the plaintiff- respondent on the ground that the lower Court had acceded jurisdiction in issuing interim mandatory injunction directing the police to break the locks and to deliver the possession to the defendant- petitioner. The lower Appellate Court was persuaded by the report of SHO concerned who had stated that no police help had been given on account of election duty. The photographs placed on the file regarding premises were disbelieved on the ground that the stage at which these were taken was not clear. The lower Appellate Court observed that when no police help was provided, it cannot be said that defendant No.1- petitioner had broken the locks and took possession of the premises, on the basis of presumption that defendant was not in possession of the premises, the interim order passed by the trial Court was set aside and the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 was allowed and the defendant- petitioner alongwith other defendants was restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the premises in dispute vide order dated May 15, 2009. It is the abovesaid order of District Judge dated May 15, 2009 which has been challenged by defendant No. 1- petitioner.