The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of possession, the legal principles of immediate and mediate possession, and the protection of the petitioner's rights during the trial.

1. The parties are litigating over possession of a shop bearing No. 26 North Block, Bhau Plaza, Jammu. Petitioner in Civil Revision No. 159/07 claims to be a tenant in the aforementioned shop of the respondent, while as petitioner in Civil Revision No. 216/07 claims to be in possession of the shop but admits the respondent in Civil Revision No. 216/07 as partner in the said shop. Both the parties are aggrieved by the orders of the courts below in the present revision petitions.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to give brief facts of the case.

3. A civil suit has been filed by the petitioner before the trial court, claiming to be a tenant of the respondent. It is further contended that the shop has been let out to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 7000/-. Petitioner after taking possession of the shop, started business of kids wear, readymade garments and artificial jewelry under the name and style of M/s Abheer Kids Wear. In support of his contention, petitioner has shown the following evidence that he is in possession and owner of the firm:

a) The Registration with the Labour Department. b) Stocks insured with the Insurance Company.

c) Cash Credit facility issued by the Oriental Bank of Commerce in the name of plaintiff as the owner.

d) VAT registration in the name of plaintiff as the owner.

4. The grievance of the plaintiff petitioner in the suit was that respondent defendant was trying to evict him forcibly from said shop.

5. On the other hand, case of the respondent is that petitioner has been allotted shop by the Jammu Development Authority vide lease deed executed on 27-9-1999. He denies the possession of the plaintiff petitioner. It is further averred that Clause-IV of the lease deed executed by the defendant clearly debars creation of sub-tenancy or transferring the possession of the property to any other person or entering into any partnership with a person by surrendering his possession. Respondent defendant however, admits that he had entered into partnership with the plaintiff in respect of which a partnership deed was executed, which also stands registered. It is further averred that partnership was at will and could be dissolved by giving a notice to the other side. The partnership stands dissolved and the petitioner plaintiff is not entitled to remain in possession of the shop as a partner.

6. The petitioner plaintiff had filed an application for an interim injunction seeking stay of her dispossession by the defendant respondent. The trial court directed as under:

i) That plaintiff would open the shop and dispose of the stocks lying in the suit shop within two months or till stocks are sold, whichever is earlier.

ii) That plaintiff would not purchase fresh stocks.

iii) She would deposit the sale proceeds in the court, to be preserved for payment to successful party.

iv) An inventory of stocks lying in suit shop be made.

v) The plaintiff would surrender the suit shop to defendant."

7. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed by both the parties before the Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu. The appellate court upheld the order of the trial court. However, in respect to the direction that the plaintiff will surrender possession of the shop to the defendant, the appellate court, did not concur with the direction of the trial court that the possession of the shop shall be handed over to the defendant after the stocks are sold. It has been held that the plaintiff is not in possession of the shop and no such direction can be given. A categoric finding recorded by the appellate court is that the defendant is undoubtedly in possession of the shop. Any direction to the plaintiff to hand- over the possession would mean putting the plaintiff in advantageous position. Both the parties have filed revisions in this court.

8. The case has peculiar feature, as both the parties have not come to the court with clean hands. The plaintiff claims to be a tenant and the defendant claims that he is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document