Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Kumar vs Arun Kumar on 23 October, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139359
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
124 CR-6159-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 23.10.2024
Sandeep Kumar ....Petitioner
VERSUS
Arun Kumar ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Bhupinder Singh Kundra, Advocate for the petitioner.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. Present revision petition has been preferred challenging the
order dated 07.09.2024 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for eviction/ejectment of
the respondent from the shop in question as well as for directing the
respondent to pay the rent from April 2021 to 31.12.2023 alongwith future
interest @ 12% per annum till its realization as recovery of rent amount of
Rs.4,71,744/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from January 2020 to
March 2021 is pending before this Court.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
petitioner (landlord) filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment of the
defendant-respondent (tenant) from a shop constructed in part of Khasra
No.44//24/1(2-0) situated within the revenue limits of village Sialba,
Hadbast No.148, Tehsil Kharar and District Mohali and to hand over vacant
possession of the said shop to the plaintiff-petitioner and for recovery of
Rs.4,71,744/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum for the period from
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139359
January 2020 to March 2021 and further for damages @ Rs.50,000/- per
month after the termination of tenancy alongwith interest @ 9% per annum
till the delivery of possession of the suit property. Written statement was
filed by the defendant-respondent. During the pendency of the suit, after
filing of the written statement, the present application was filed wherein the
following prayer was made :
"It is, therefore, prayed that application of the
applicant may kindly be accepted/allowed and the
respondent may kindly be ejected/evicted from the shops
fully described in the heading of the application and the
applicant may kindly be put into vacant possession of
the shop in question by passing necessary orders in this
regard;
And
For directing the respondent to pay the rent from
April 2021 to 31.12.2023 and also directing the
respondent to pay the rent from March 2021 to
31.12.2023 alongwith future interest @ 12% per annum
till its realization as the recovery of rent amount of
Rs.4,71,744/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from
January 2020 to March 2021 is pending before this
Hon'ble Court;
And
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139359
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case may kindly also be granted in favour of the
applicant."
3. Reply was filed to the said application and the same was
dismissed vide the impugned order dated 07.09.2024.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would contend that
the defendant-respondent had admitted in his written statement that he had
intentionally not paid the rent and that the period of rent agreement has also
expired and hence the present application was filed for eviction of the
defendant-respondent from the shop in question and for payment of rent. It is
further the contention that as per the jamabandi, the defendant-respondent
owns another shop in the same vicinity and is illegally occupying the shop of
the plaintiff-petitioner.
5. Heard.
6. In the present case a perusal of the prayer made in the suit for
possession as well as in the application under Section 151 CPC would reveal
that the prayers are almost identical. What the plaintiff-petitioner is wanting
infact is that the suit be decreed on an application under Section 151 CPC
when the trial is yet to commence. It is trite that any interim relief which
would amount to decreeing the suit cannot be granted. The Trial Court has
also held the same. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar
Pradesh vs. Ram Sukhi Devi [AIR 2005 SC 284] has held as under :
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139359
"8. To say the least, approach of the learned Single
Judge and the Division Bench is judicially unsustainable
and indefensible. The final relief sought for in the writ
petition has been granted as an interim measure. There
was no reason indicated by learned Single Judge as to
why the Government Order dated 26.10.1998 was to be
ignored. Whether the writ petitioner was entitled to any
relief in the writ petition has to be adjudicated at the
time of final disposal of the writ petition. This Court has
on numerous occasions observed that the final relief
sought for should not be granted at an interim stage.
The position is worsened if the interim direction has
been passed with stipulation that the applicable
Government Order has to be ignored. Time and again
this Court has deprecated the practice of granting
interim orders which practically give the principal relief
sought in the petition for no better reason than that of a
prima facie case has been made out, without being
concerned about the balance of convenience, the public
interest and a host of other considerations. [See
Assistant Collector of Central Excise, West Bengal v.
Dunlop India Ltd. (1985 (1) SCC 260 at p. 265), State of
Rajasthan v. M/s Swaika Properties (1985(3) SCC 217
at p.224), State of U.P. and Ors. v. Visheshwar (1995
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139359
Supp (3) SCC 590), Bharatbhushan Sonaji Kshirsagar
(Dr.) v. Abdul Khalik Mohd. Musa and Ors. (1995 Supp
(2) SCC 593), Shiv Shankar and Ors. v. Board of
Directors, U.P.S.R.T.C. and Anr. (1995 Supp (2) SCC
726) and Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Health and
Medical Education Department Civil Sectt., Jammu v.
Dr. Ashok Kumar Kohli (1995 Supp (4) SCC 214).] No
basis has been indicated as to why learned Single Judge
thought the course as directed was necessary to be
adopted. Even it was not indicated that a prima facie
case was made out though as noted above that itself is
not sufficient. We, therefore, set aside the order passed
by learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division
Bench without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case we have interfered primarily on the ground that
the final relief has been granted at an interim stage
without justifiable reasons. Since the controversy lies
within a very narrow compass, we request the High
Court to dispose of the matter as early as practicable
preferably within six months from the date of receipt of
this judgment."
7. The argument of learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that
because an admission has been made in the written statement and that the
period of rent agreement has also expired would entitle the plaintiff-
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139359
petitioner to the grant of relief as prayed for in the application under Section
151 CPC, deserves to be rejected as the same would amount to decreeing the
suit. The argument of learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that the
defendant-respondent owns another shop and hence the shop of the plaintiff-
petitioner in possession of the defendant-respondent is illegal, also deserves
to be rejected. At this stage, on an application under Section 151 CPC, the
merits of the case cannot be gone into.
8. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the present
revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
23.10.2024 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
6 of 6
