S.N.AGGARWAL,J - (1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Supervisor by the respondent-company. He was allotted a house bearing No. C-1596, Sushant Lok, Phase-1, Gurgaon, where he is residing with his family. The petitioner had been making the payment of maintenance charges, electricity bills etc., regularly and had also got installed a telephone. The services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent-company vide letter dated 30.4.2003 (Annexure R-2) with effect from 1.5.2003. The petitioner issued the demand notice and filed a complaint before the Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Gurgaon. On 19.5.2003 the respondent-company issued a letter to the petitioner to vacate the suit premises i.e. House No. C-1596, on which the petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the respondent-company seeking to restrain the respondent-company or its officers to dispossess the petitioner from the house in dispute, illegally and forcibly.
(2.) AN application for interim stay was also filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC to seek protection of his possession during the pendency of the civil suit. The said trial Court dismissed the application for interim stay vide order dated 8.12.2003. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order but the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon also dismissed the appeal vide order dated 8.6.2005. Hence the present petition was filed by the petitioner on 17.4.2006 i.e. after about 10 months. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that admittedly, the petitioner is in possession of the suit property and therefore, he is in settled possession and therefore, he can be dispossessed only in accordance with law and not illegally or forcibly. Reliance was placed on the three-Judge Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported as Rame Gowda (D) by Lrs. v. Mr. Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs. and another, 2004(1) RCR(Civil) 519.
(3.) IT was also submitted that during the pendency of this petition the respondent-company has sold the house to one S.D. Ramtri vide registered sale-deed dated 4.4.2006 and therefore, the respondent-company is no longer entitled to seek possession of the house in dispute from the petitioner. Hence, it was prayed that the possession of the petitioner be protected during the pendency of the civil suit.;