( 1 ). Delhi Automobiles limited has filed this revision petition against the order dated 17/2/1993 of Shri S. M. Chopra, Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and confirming C. R. 201 /93 the order dated 1/12/1992 of Shri K. S. Pal, Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, vide which an application underorder 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, CPC, moved by the defendant/ petitioner was dismissed while the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, moved by the plaintiff/ respondent was. allowed and the petitioner was restrained from dispossessing the respondent/petitioner forcibly, except with the process of law.

( 2 ) IT would be necessary to state in brief the facts leading to thr filing of this petition, M/s. Economy Sales, respondent, filed a suit for declaration in which the following reliefs were claimed:

(A) Declare that plaintiff firm is a tenant in the suit property, namely front portion of 1, Sikandra Road, New Delhi together with a room as per site plan and that plaintiff s tenancy rights in the suit property are not in any manner affected by the compromise decree passed in Suit No-667/79 styled as M/s. Delhi Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Maharaja Satbir Singh and others. (b) A decree for Permanent Injunct officers, agents, employees, contractors etc. from dispossessing the plaintiff firm from the suit premises, namely 1, Sikandra Road, New Delhi referrable to the front portion and room marked A in the site plan. (c) Cost to the suit be also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. (d)Any other relief deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case be also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.

( 3 ) IT was inter alia pleaded by the plaintiff/ respondent that it was a partnership firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act having Smt. Shashi Choudhury and Ravi Kamal as partners. It was also pleaded that the premises known as 1, Sikandra Road,ew Delhi were jointly owned by S/s. Majaraj Dalbir Singh, Maharaj Kumar Gajbir Singh and late His Highness Maharaj Kumar Mahabir Singh as co-heirs having I/3rd share each and there has never been any partition amongst the owners. It was also claimed that Shri Ravinder Kumar Singh as a co-owner was competent to create tenancy in respect of his share and that the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant through its partner Ravi Kamal at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500. 00in December 1983 and a letter dated 6/1/1984 was written by the aforesaid late Shri Ravinderbir Singh demanding a sum of Rs. 6,000. 00 on account of rent from December 1983 to March 1984. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff firm had been enjoying the said property as atenant eversince it was let out for commercial purpose to the knowledge of all the co-owners without there being any objection to the aforesaid letting. It has also been pleaded that on 14/3/1992 the defendant/petitioner herein had fraudulently represented that they had purchased the entire building known as I, Sikandra Road, New Delhi and threatened the plaintiff to be dispossessed from the portion in their possession as a tenant and believing this claim to be correct the plaintiff instituted a suit being Suit No. 130/ 92 on 16/3/1992 with a prayer that M/s. Delhi Automobiles Limited be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the front portion without due process of law in which an ad-interim injunction was issued directing the parties to maintain status quo about the existing position and possession of the suit property which was extended from time to time. The said suit was, however, withdrawn with permission to file another suit since the plaintiff firm was not registered at the time of the filing of the said suit.

( 4 ) IT has also been claimed that in the said suit it was pleaded by the Delhi Automobiles Ltd. , defendant/petitioner that it is a law abiding person and that the plaintiff would be evicted from the premises accordi