IMPORTANT POINTS
Revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised to correct jurisdictional errors only.
Revisional jurisdiction is not to be exercised against interlocutory orders.

JUDGMENT :

R.F. Nariman, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Respondent No.1 filed a Civil Suit dated 05.03.2013 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solan under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act in which the following reliefs were claimed:

“(a) Declaring that the effect the plaintiff was running business in Shop No.3 in the name and style M/s Om Garments owned by proforma Defendant No. 2 in Anand Complex, The Mall Solan w.e.f. 28.01.2013 on the basis of partnership deed of the said date with proforma Defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff has been wrongly dispossessed by the Defendant No. 1 from the Shop No. 3 in the intervening night of 03.03.2013–04.03.2013 illegally, wrongfully, without the consent of the plaintiff or proforma Defendant No. 2.(b) Decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 from causing any interference on any portion of suit premises/Shop No. 3 mentioned above.”

3. A written statement was filed by the appellant herein denying the averments made in the Suit and stating that he has been in possession since 2004 as a tenant of the landlady, who is Respondent No.2 before us.

4. The landlady also filed a written statement dated 05.07.2013 in which she stated that apart from the partnership entered into with Respondent No.1, the petitioner was her tenant w.e.f. 2004. An Order 39 Rule 1 application was filed which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 21.04.2015 saying that the relief asked for could not be granted at this stage as it would amount to decreeing the Suit itself. An appeal filed before the Additional District Judge met with the same fate. By the judgment dated 19.12.2016, the appellate Court held:

“However, when it is an admitted case of Defendant No. 2 admittedly land lady of the suit shop that she has rented the suit shop to Defendant No. 1/Respondent and has set up counter defence that in fact Defendant No.1 has sublet the suit shop to the plaintiff which is not at all the case of the plaintiff prima facie it is clear on record that suit shop was rented by Defendant No.2 to respondent/defendant No.1 and Defendant No.1 has been running suit shop since 17.09.2004 when both the Defendants have also reduced rent agreement into writing, copy of which is also available in the case file. As per rent agreement, the tenancy had commenced w.e.f. 01.09.2004. Nothing has come on record, if Defendant No.1/respondent had ever vacated/surrendered the possession of the shop in favour of landlady nor it is the case of Defendant No.2 that she ever sought eviction of Defendant No.1 from the suit shop. It appears from the copy of partnership deed having been relied upon by the applicant that both applicant and Defendant No.2 had connived with each other in order to oust Respondent No.1 who is tenant over the suit shop and filed the suit as well as application for temporary and mandatory injunction in the Court. Moreover, when the applicant herself has come with the plea that she is out of possession of the suit shop and she has prayed that possession in her favour be restored qua the suit shop by way of temporary injunction and at the same time the applicant has failed to prove on record that she has prima facie case of balance of convenience lies in her favour or that she is going to suffer irreparable loss as discussed above hence by allowing of the application as prayed by applicant would amount to decree of the suit in favour of the applicant without giving the parties to prove their respective claims by leading evidence. Even when it has come on record that Respondent No.1 is in actual possession of the suit property which was rented out to him by Defendant No.2 landlady in the year 2004 and nothing has come on record that the Defendant No.1 had ever been evicted from the suit shop in accordance with law or he ever surrendered the possession of the suit property in favour of defendant No.2, it is clear on record that Respondent No.1 has prima-facie case and balance of convenience also