RAVI CHOPRA Vs. JAJPAL MAHENDRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Undisputedly the petitioner is in physical possession of the demised premises. The only prayer made in the suit is that the defendant be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff except in accordance with law. An ad interim injunction was sought, which was declined solely on the ground that the plaintiff prima facie appears to be a trespasser, therefore, the possession of the trespasser cannot be protected by granting temporary injunction.

(2.) The reasoning adopted by the Courts below in refusing the injunction is devoid of any merits and is against the settled law to the effect that the parties cannot take law into their own hands in a civilised society. The parties cannot be permitted to determine their rights in the streets and endanger the peace of the society. The owner can only take possession in accordance with law, civil or criminal. He cannot be permitted to take law into his own hands. It is axiomatic that no person can be deprived of possessory title except in accordance with law. Without expressing my opinion with regard to the nature of possession and relationship of landlord and tenant, keeping in view the pendency of the suit and admitted fact that the petitioner is in possession, I order that statu quo with regard to possession shall be maintained on the condition that the petitioner deposits in trial Court Rs. 800/- per mensem with effect from September 1, 1988 till date and in future continues depositing Rs. 800/- by 10th of each calender month as security for mense profits. This is an ad hoc arrangement during the pendency of the suit. It would not prejudice the rights the plaintiff or the defendant to get the mesne profits determined in appropriate proceedings and further to take possession of the demised premises in accordance with law. The order is without prejudice to the pleas of the parties taken in the suit. Any observation made on merits shall not be taken note of at the time of deciding the suit.

(3.) In view of the observations made above, the impugned order is set aside and revision petition is allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.