VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) PRESENT revision petition has been filed against the dismissal of application moved by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak as affirmed by the learned District Judge Rohtak.
(2.) THE petitioner had claimed the injunction on the ground that he was the tenant in the property in dispute and therefore, was entitled to protect his possession. However, the learned Courts below came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to show that he was tenant or licensee qua the suit property and therefore, his possession was that of a trespasser. Learned Courts below also came to a prima facie conclusion that the property was under the ownership of respondent No. 6 whereas the petitioner was claiming tenancy under Tej Krishan Sharma and after his death from respondent No. 7 and her daughter who claimed to be the widow of Tej Krishan Sharma. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Walter Louis Franklin (dead) through Lrs. v. George Singh (dead) through Lrs., 1997(2) RCR(Civil) 41 to contend that as the petitioner was in possession of the property he was entitled to injunction even against true owner.
(3.) THE petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case Som Nath v. Lachhman Singh, 2000(1) RCR(Civil) 100 to contend that the courts below were only required to see three basic ingredients before grant of temporary injunction i.e. prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that once the petitioner was held to be in possession in any capacity he was entitled to injunction.;