ARUN KUMAR Vs. RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is maintained by the petitioner, against the order dated 22.07.2017, passed by leaned District Judge, Hamirpur, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 09 of 2016, whereby the status quo order, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) , Court No. II, Hamirpur, in CMA No. 479/2015, dated 24.02.2016 has been set aside.

(2.) Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner, who is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court (hereinafter to be called as "the plaintiff") filed a civil suit before the learned trial Court, under Section 34, 38 and 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the present respondents No. 1 & 2 from interfering and disconnecting the electricity meter No. HC 2000268, installed in the premises in his possession as a tenant, existing over the land, comprised in Khata No. 88 min, Khatauni No. 143, Khasra No. 725, measuring 08.55 square meter, situated in Up mohal Hamirpur, Tappa Bajuri, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P., till he is evicted in due course of law. As per the plaintiff, he was inducted as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 70/- by the predecessor-in-interest of defendant No. 1, late Sh. Roshan Lal. Now Roshan Lal has expired and pursuant to his death, his estate has been inherited by his sons Raj Kumar and Ravi Kumar, vide mutation No. 1064, dated 07.09.2015. It has been alleged that there is an electricity meter No. HC 2000268 installed in the premises in the name of defendant No. 2 and the defendants, in connivance with each other, are bent upon to disconnect the same with a view to evict and dispossess the plaintiff from the demised premises. As the plaintiff is still paying monthly rent regularly alongwith electricity expenses, therefore, the defendants are liable to be restrained from disconnecting electricity meter No. HC 20000268 from the demised premises, till the plaintiff is evicted in due course of law.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 by filing written statement, raised preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action and suppression of material facts. On merits, it has been averred that the shop in dispute has fallen in his share in the family settlement and the plaintiff has not paid the rent after the demise of his father and as the dispute is between tenant and landlord, therefore, the suit is not maintainable.