L.B. Tandan vs Smt. Kanta Devi and Others

G.R. Majithia, J.—The Defendant Petitioner has challenged the order of the learned District Judge, Ambala, who on appeal by the Plaintiff-Respondents restrained the former from dispossessing the latter in pursuance of an ejectment order in case No. 339-R of 1984 Sh. L.B. Tandon v. Sh. Panna Lal son of Sh. Lachhi Ram.

The facts, briefly, are that the Petitioner purchased the house in dispute from Sh. Rameshwar Dass. The owner, Sh. Rameshwar Dass, informed the Petitioner that Sh. Panna Lal was a tenant on the disputed premises. The Petitioner served a notice on him calling upon him to acknowledge the Petitioner as the landlord of the demised premises. Thereafter he filed an application u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 for his ejectment from the house in dispute. The application was allowed by the Rent Controller vide order dated June 13, 1986. The order was affirmed by the appellate Authority vide order dated November 12, 1986.

The Respondents filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the Petitioner and Sh. Panna Lai for restraining them from dispossessing them (the Respondent), in pursuance of the ejectment order referred to above. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, was also filed for temporary injunction for restraining the Petitioner from dispossessing the Respondents during the pendency of the suit. The learned Sub-Judge, vide his order dated December 1, 1986, dismissed the application. On appeal, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal and held that the Petitioner cannot dispossess the Respondents in pursuance of the ejectment order notice above.

The learned District Judge, in his judgment, referred to various rent receipts evidencing payment of rent by the Respondents to the original owner Sh. Rameshwar Dass. The learned District Judge also referred to ration card, gas connection and voters'' list, for coming to the conclusion that the Respondents were in, possession of the disputed premises. Relying on this evidence, the learned judge came to the conclusion that the Respondents were not liable to be ejected in pursuance of the eviction order obtained by the Petitioner against Sh. Panna Lal.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. I find that the order passed by the learned District Judge is well-reasoned and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 1 maintain the same. The revision is, thus, dismissed. However, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, more particularly that Sh. Rishi Parkash, the predecessor-in-interest of the present Respondents, was the real brother of Sh. Panna Lal, the tenant, against whom the eviction order was passed, I direct the learned trial court to dispose of the original suit within six months from today. I, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs.