AMARJEET SINGH Vs. GH NABI KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BUILDING including land situated at Amira Kadal Chowk opposite 1st bridge at Had Singh High Street Srinagar belonged to one Harbans Singh. The building comprising of three floors and one shop, excluding shop three floors are claimed to be under tenancy of the petitioners from early eighties. With the advent of turmoil which erupted in early nineties the petitioner closed the Clinic, as he was running in the said building but continued to pay the rent to the Landlord. In the year 2004 dispossession was threatened by Iqbal Singh son and Dapinder Kour d/o Harbans Singh and one Mohammad Amin Latoo.

(2.) PETITIONERS filed suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction before court of 2nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar. Alongside suit application was also filed for grant of ad interim relief, same was granted vide order dated 20.11.2004 to the effect that the non applicants therein shall not cause interference with the tenancy of the applicants (Petitioners) over the suit property. Disobedience of the said direction by the non -applicants therein prompted the petitioners to file application for implementation of the order through police. Disturbance with possession constrained petitioners to file an application for restoration of Status quo ante, before the court of Sub Judge (CJM) Srinagar, as the case was transferred from the court of Ilnd Additional Munsiff to the court of Sub Judge (CJM) under the orders of the Learned Principal District Judge Srinagar. Learned Sub Judge vide his detailed order dated 19.6.2006 passed the following direction: "a. that the tenanted premises as described in para 4 of the plaint , except the room on first floor of the building on road side as is stated to be in possession of defendant No. 3 Mohammad Amin Latoo, shall remain under lock and key of the plaintiff No.l. The lock shall be put in presence of the NAZIR of this court on the suit property after removing the present lock which may be put to use by the plaintiff No. 1 for the purpose it has been leased out; b. that the defendant No. 3 Mohammad Amin Latoo shall remain in possession of the room on first floor as described in the Advocate, commissioner report as a care taker of the defendant No. 1. c. that the position as mentioned in para 'a and 'b above of the tenanted premises shall remain in existence till further orders from this court."

(3.) DIS -satisfied with the order the non applicants namely Iqbal Singh filed the appeal, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 8.11.2006 by the court of 1st Additional District Judge Srinagar. It was brought to the notice of the learned court that the appeal filed by Iqbal Singh is in -competent. Suit property has been sold through Sale deed executed on 8.5.2006 and registered on 31.5.2006. Learned appellate court noticing the position of Sale deed having been executed on 8.5.2006 and the order impugned having been passed on 19.6.2006 has opined that the appellant Iqbal Singh has no interest left in the suit property, so has no locus standi or Cause of action in the appeal or in the suit, therefore, appeal being not maintainable, dismissed it in limini.