A revision petition against an order refusing to appoint a Local Commissioner to lock demised premises is maintainable if it invokes the inherent jurisdiction of the court under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code.

Sarojnei Saksena, J.

1. Petitioner plaintiff-tenant has, assailed the trial Courts outer dated 17.5.1996, whereby this petition filed the suit under Section 151 read with Order 26 Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, is being disallowed.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act alleging that he was a tenant on first and second floor of the disputed property No. 148/6-A situated in Chowk Kuluwala, Peeri Gali, Amritsar since 1952. For 15 days he went out of Amritsar in the month of November, 1993. On 22.11.1993 when he came back he found that the defendant-landlords have broken the lock of the premises and have removed his stocks: and thus, have; forcibly occupied the premises. He made, report to the police, but no action was taken by them. He filed this suit on 1.12.1993 claiming restoration of possession of the demised premises Along-with this suit he also filed the petition under order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure code, restraining the respondent-landlords from transferring or parting with the possession of the premises to any third person, that petition was decided on 1.2.1996. After ad interim injunction was granted, the defendant-respondents started taking steps to use the premises for their own use and occupation. On 11.5.1994 the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application for locking and sealing the premises through the Local Commissioner so that the defendant-respondents may not take undue advantage of forcible dispossession of the plaintiff-petitioner. This petition was dismissed by the impugned order.

3. The petitioners learned counsel relying on M/s Batliboi & Co. Ltd. v. K. Verma, 1993(1) RRR 265 and Sri Samir Sobhan Sanjal v. Tracks Trade Private Ltd. and Ors., JT 1996(5) SC 74 strongly stressed that the plaintiff-petitioner was occupying the demised premises as a tenant. During his absence, the defendant landlord forcibly dispossessed him. No doubt, the trial Court restrained them front creating third party rights by leasing it out or transferring-it to any other person, but it has. dismissed his petition filed under Section 151 read with Order 26 Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, whereby he prayed that the premises be locked so that the landlord-defendants may not enjoy the fruits of their illegal action.

4. Respondents learned counsel relying on Smt. Harvin Kaur v. Godha Ram and Anr., 1979 PLJ 562 and Pritam Singh and Anr. v. Sunder Lal, (1990-2)98 P.L.R. 191 contended that since the plaintiff- petitioners petition filed under Order 26 Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, was dismissed by the impugned order, this revision assailing the same order is not maintainable. No doubt, in these authorities, it is held that the order passed under Order 26 Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, refusing, to appoint a Local Commissioner is not revisable as the impugned order does hot decide any issue nor adjudicates the rights of the parties for purposes of suit.

5. In M/s Batlibois case (supra), a Single Bench of Delhi High Court considered identical facts. In that case also, the landlord physically dispossessed-his tenant, the tenant filed civil suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief -Act for delivery of possession; the court observed that the status quo cannot be maintained, as it would give advantage to the landlord of his wrong. Hence, the direction was issued that the premises be sealed under the seal of Registrar of the High Court during pendency of the suit. The Apex Court also considered such facts in Sri Samir Sobhans case (supra): In that case, without any decree or order of eviction of the appellant-tenant from the demised premises, he was unlawfully dispossessed from the premises without any due process of law. He filed the petition under Order 21 Rules 98 and 99, Civil Procedure Code. The question was whether he should be allowed to remain in possession till his application under Order 21 Rules 98 and 99, Civil Procedure Code, is adjudica