Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THESE writ petitions have been filed by defendant -petitioners against the judgments dt. 19.11.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jhunjhunu whereby two different appeals filed by the plaintiff -respondent -Ram Gopal Modi have been allowed and the order of injunction dt. 3.9.2013 passed in favour of plaintiff -petitioners on their application for grant of temporary injunction filed in their counter claim by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jhunjhunu dt. 3.9.2013 has been reversed and application filed by plaintiff -respondent in his suit under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. has been allowed. Plaintiff -Ram Gopal filed a suit for permanent injunction along with application for temporary injunction inter alia praying that a shop situated adjoining main gate of Rani Sati Temple, Jhunjhunu was in his possession as a tenant. He has been selling certain eatables, henna (mehndi), Coconut and the sweets (prasad) and other stationery articles. He has also obtained registration number from Commercial Taxes Department and electricity connection. He has obtained licence from Labour Department as also from Food Department. Original tenant was Mahabir Prasad and plaintiff -Ram Gopal Modi was his adopted son. When Rani Sati Temple Trust wanted to dispossess him from the shop, he filed a suit, which was decreed by the trial Court on 4.3.2008 directing that plaintiff shall not be dispossessed except by due process of law. Appeal filed there -against by the trust was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jhunjhunu vide judgment and decree dt. 9.4.2009.
(2.) ACCORDING to plaintiff, Rani Sati Temple Trust had filed a suit for eviction of defendant Vinod Kumar Saini on 10.4.1997. Vinod Kumar in his written statement as also in his statement recorded during trial in that suit accepted that he was sub -tenant of plaintiff -Ram Gopal Modi and that Ram Gopal Modi was having possession of the disputed shop. Vinod Kumar had pleaded that he was employee of plaintiff -Ram Gopal. Plaintiff terminated his service on 29.7.2013 and served a notice to him through his advocate to that effect. He was given advance salary of two months of July and August, 2013 vide demand draft. Plaintiff -Ram Gopal Modi was taken ill, therefore, he did not open the shop on 19th and 20th July, 2013. When plaintiff went to his shop along with his son Pramod Modi in the morning of 21st July, 2013, he found that locks of the Almirah on both sides of the shutters of the shop were broken and wooden platform (takhta) in front of the counter was also found opened. His servant Vinod Kumar had taken out various items from the almirahs and was trying to sell the same. He had stolen half such items. When the plaintiff -Ram Gopal Modi in the presence of Promod, Suresh Kumar Gupta and Leeladhar Swami, demanded explanation from him, Vinod Kumar insisted that he would not allow the plaintiff to open the shop. 5 -7 anti social elements were there to help him. Defendant -Vinod Kumar had stolen his goods worth Rs. 10,000 from the shop in question. Plaintiff lodged first information report with the Police Station on 22.7.2013. The police filed a complaint against him under Sec. 106 and 117 Cr.P.C. before the SDO, Jhunjhunu. Plaintiff separately filed a criminal complaint against the defendant in the Court for offence u/s. 379, 381, 341 and 383 I.P.C., which has been sent to the police for investigation u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. Owing to this illegal action on the part of Vinod Kumar, plaintiff served a notice on him and terminated his service. Prayer was made for issuing a decree of injunction against the defendant injuncting him not to interfere with the peaceful possession and use of the shop by the plaintiff. Defendant -petitioners filed written statement and also counter claim therewith. Defendants filed application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. refuting the aforesaid pleadings of the plaint. According to defendant -petitioner No. 1 -Vinod Kumar and his son defendant No. 2 -Vijendra Saini, they were running their shop with the written permission of Rani Sati Temple Trust on one side of the shop of plaintiff by putting almirahs and wooden platform (Takhta). Defendant -Vinod Kumar denied that he was employee of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has not come with clean hands and concealed the facts. Defendant -Vinod Kumar was not paying rent to plaintiff directly. Plaintiff wants to evict defendants without the due process of law and, therefore, he has cooked up a false story claiming that defendant -Vinod Kumar was his employee. Defendant produced along with written statement copy of the site plan showing location of almirah and wooden platform from where he was running his business. It was pleaded that defendant was initially paying to the plaintiff Rs. 250 per day for the use of the place. Thereafter, he started paying Rs. 7,500 per month from 2008. This arrangement was going on with the implied consent of the Rani Sati Temple Trust. Thereafter, dispute arose between plaintiff and defendant because plaintiff started demanding a sum of Rs. 25,000 per month. This dispute ultimately led to plaintiff lodging a criminal complaint against the defendant -petitioner and serving him a notice on the false assertion that defendant -Vinod Kumar was his employee.
(3.) DEFENDANT also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction along with his counter claim. Learned trial Court by order dt. 3.9.2013 directed plaintiff not to dispossess defendants from the disputed shop till decision of the suit, either by himself or by any other person. This finding has been reversed by the learned Additional District Judge in the appeal filed by the plaintiff which allowed the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C.;