An appellate court can interfere with an order passed by a trial court under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC if it is satisfied that the order suffers from a clear violation of law and that the balance of convenience and irreparable injury do not lie in favor of the party who filed the application.

R.L.Anand, J.

1. This is a civil revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 8.6.1996 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra who accepted the appeal of defendant Shri Ganeshi set aside the order dated 6.2.1996 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kurukshetra, who allowed the application of the plaintiff-petitioner Smt. Durga Devi under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Durga Devi plaintiff-petitioner brought a suit for permanent injunction alleging that she is tenant of property No. 4 situated in Mohalla Majri, Shahbad, District Kurukshetra, as described in para No. 1 of the plaint under the Municipal Committee and has been paying the rent to the committee regularly but the defendant in collusion with the Municipal Committee forged and fabricated some documents regarding tenancy in his favour and wanted to dispossess her from the property without any lawful authority. She is using this property for residential purposes and also she is doing her business by ironing the clothes.

3. The claim of the plaintiff was opposed by the defendant Ganeshi who pleaded that the plaintiff is his sister-in-law (Sali). Defendant is the tenant of demised premises under the Municipal Committee. Since the plaintiff was not having any gainful employment, she was engaged as a servant on the condition that the plaintiff would pay to him a sum of Rs. 50/- per day. Further the entire apparatus including the iron are owned by him. The parties placed documents in support of their case before the trial Court which allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. vide order dated 6.2.1996 and the reasons for allowing the application are given in para No. 7 of the order which is reproduced as under :-

"Besides above, the defendant has himself admitted the possession of the plaintiff over the property in dispute. It is the case of the defendant that since plaintiff has no work, therefore, she was permitted to do ironing business in the property in dispute on certain terms and conditions. Plaintiff is related to defendant. Thus, if we go by the case of the defendant, the plaintiff is licensee on the property in dispute. Her possession is permissive possession. Under these circumstances, if the defendant wants to take back possession from the plaintiff, he cannot do so forcibly and illegally. He can well take recourse to law."

4. Aggrieved by the said order defendant Ganeshi filed the appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra who vide impugned judgment dated 8.6.1996 accepted the appeal of defendant and dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. Smt. Durga Devi has filed the present civil revision challenging the order of Appellate Court.

5. This revision is being disposed of with the assistance of Shri Pritam Saini, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner Smt. Durga Devi and Shri Hari Om Sharma, Advocate, who appeared on behalf of respondent Ganeshi.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the first Appellate Court has erred in dismissing the application of the plaintiff-petitioner who has been able to establish prima facie that she is in possession of the property. Mr. Saini submitted that even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the possession of the plaintiff is that of a tresspasser or unauthorised, she cannot be evicted from the premises except in due course of law. It was also submitted by Shri Saini that the first Appellate Court committed an error in interfering in the well reasoned order of the trial Court in spite of the settled law that the Appellate Court should be slow in interfering in the well reasoned discretion once exercised by the trial Court.

7. On the contrary Shri Hari Om Sharma, Advocate, has supported the impugned order and has adopted the same reasons which have been advanced