RSA No.2069 of 2009 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 2069 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: September 03, 2009
Sunita Rani ...........Appellant
Versus
Smt.Nirmala Devi and others ..........Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Gauravjit Singh, Advocate for
Mr.R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant.
**
Sabina, J.
Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining
the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs
over the shop comprising two rooms, a verandah and stair case, situated in
Arya Bazar, Kartarpur shown red in the plan attached and taking forcible
possession thereof except in due course of law. The suit of the plaintiffs was
partly decreed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jalandhar vide
judgment and decree dated 16.3.006 and defendants No. 2 and 3 were
restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and
from taking forcible possession of the shop in dispute except the stair case,
except in due course of law. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.2
filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge,
Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 3.3.2009. Hence, the present
appeal by the defendant-Sunita Rani.
The facts of the case, as noticed by the Additional District
Judge in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment, read as under:-
” 2. In brief, the facts of the suit of respondents No. 1 & 2
RSA No.2069 of 2009 (O&M) 2(hereinafter called the plaintiffs) as set up by them in the plaint
before the ld.lower court are that the shop in dispute is comprising
two rooms, verandah and stair case at Arya Bazar, Kartarpur,
shown red in the site plan and mentioned in detail in the head note
of the plaint. Previously, this property was owned by Labhu Ram
who gave it on rent to Asa Ram. After the death of Asa Ram,
Mahesh Lal alias Ramesh Lal inherited the tenancy rights.
Mahesh Pal died on 15.8.90 and plaintiffs became tenants in the
demised premises. Appellant Sunita Rani alongwith Hira Lal
(hereinafter called the defendants) claim themselves to be owners
of the property in dispute having purchased by them from
defendant Brij Bhushan. Previously, the rate of rent of the
demised premises was Rs.1.50 per month, then it was enhanced to
Rs.20/- per month. Thereafter, defendants started threatening the
plaintiffs to enhance the rent to Rs.300/- per month. Ultimately,
on 27.8.96, defendants along with some police officials and others
threatened the plaintiff to dispossess them from the suit property
illegally and forcibly. Plaintiffs requested them to desist from
their evil designs but they refused which compelled the plaintiffs
to file the present suit. It is, therefore, prayed that defendants be
restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the disputed
property illegally and forcibly except in due course of law.
3. Suit against defendant No.1 was dismissed as
withdrawn on 13.3.06. Defendant No.3 was exparte at the time of
passing the judgment and decree under appeal.
4. Defendant No.2 in her written statement took preliminary
RSA No.2069 of 2009 (O&M) 3objections such as plaintiff No.1 has no locus standi and cause of
action to file this suit by her act and conduct; it is bad for mis
joinder of parties. Description of the property has been wrongly
mentioned in the site plan. Neither the stair case was rented out to
the tenant nor it is in possession of the tenant. This suit has been
filed with malafide intention.
5. On merits, it is submitted that it is wrong that shop comprises
of two rooms. However, there is only one verandah and stair case
which is not part of the tenanted premises nor the stair case is in
possession of the plaintiffs. It is wrong that Mahesh Pal inherited
the tenancy. It is denied that Mahesh Pal died on 15.8.90. It is
incorrect that plaintiffs became tenants in the demised premises
by inheritance. Only plaintiff No.2 Raj Kumar took the shop in
dispute on rent @ Rs.300/- per month vide rent note dated
27.8.90. Plaintiff No.1 has no concern with the premises in
dispute. All other parawise contents f the plaint were denied and
prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.
6. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of defendant
No.2 reiterating the facts pleaded in the plaint and controverted
those of the written statement.
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed by the trial Court:-
“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for ?
OPP
2. Relief.”
RSA No.2069 of 2009 (O&M) 4
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of
the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining
the defendant from interfering in their peaceful possession. Plaintiffs led
oral evidence. In the written statement, defendant No.2 admitted that the
plaintiff No.2 was in possession of the suit property as a tenant. The said
fact was also admitted by defendant No.2, while appearing in the witness
box as DW1. The case of defendant No.2 was that plaintiff No. 1 Nirmala
Devi had no locus standi to seek injunction against defendant No.2.
However, Nirmala Devi is the mother of plaintiff No.2-Raj Kumar and both
of them are apparently in possession of the property in dispute after the
death of Mahesh Pal. Since the possession of plaintiff No. 2 has been
categorically admitted by defendant No.2, both the Courts below rightly
held that the plaintiffs could not be dispossessed from the property in
dispute except in due course of law.
No substantial question of law arises in this regular second
appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this
appeal is dismissed.
( Sabina )
Judge
September 03, 2009
arya