STESALIT LIMITED Vs. VINAIK VISHANU SAWANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 16.8.2000 passed by the learned Addl. district judge, Solan, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent -plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) against the order dated 7.6.2000 passed by the learned sub judge 1st Class, Nalagarh dismissing the application of the plaintiff under order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. has bee allowed and the application has been partly allowed to the extent that the petitioners -defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) have been restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from House No.503, Shivalik Nagar, Jhar Majra, Tehsil Nalagarh, except in due course of law.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendants and since June, 1998 is in possession of House No.503, Shivalik Nagar, Jhar Majra, Tehsil Nalagarh, which was provided to him by the employer, that is, the defendants. The plaintiff was discharged from service vide order dated 10.11.1999 and was also served with a notice to vacate the aforesaid premises failing which he has been threatened to be forcibly and illegally thrown out of the premises in suit. The plaintiff then instituted a suit against the defendants for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff from the premises in suit mainly on the ground that the matter concerning his discharge from service is pending adjudication Before the Labour Court and he cannot be evicted till the dispute is finally decided by the said Court. It was along with the suit that the plaintiff moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from evicting him from the aforesaid premises during he pendency of the suit.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit as also the application for grant of temporary injunction. Apart from the preliminary objections regarding maintainability, non -joinder of parties, cause of action, valuation, and claim of the plaintiff has been denied on the ground that since he has ceased to be the employee of the defendants, therefore, he is not entitled to the relief claimed. It has been claimed that a worker/employee of the company whose service have been terminated or who has been dismissed as per the rules, is duly bound to vacate the possession of the premises if allotted to him by the employer.