A person in possession of a property is deemed to continue till evicted in due course of law. A person in possession can be ousted according to law. The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining.

N.K.Kapoor, J.

1. This revision petition is against the order dated 25.2.1995 of Additional Senior Sub Judge declining the petitioners application for restoration of possession of property No. SCF 124, Guru Amar Dass Market, khanna.

2. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents or servants from dispossessing the plaintiff and from interfering in any manner in the possession of the plaintiff illegally and forcibly. The suit was filed on 20.8. 1994. On 22.8.1994 the plaintiff filed an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner so as to prove and protect the present possession. The trial Court appointed Mr. Manjit Singh, Advocate, as Local Commissioner on 22.8.1994 who visited the spot and submitted his report dated 7.9.1994. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff on 22.8.1994 in the after-noon and so when the Local Commissioner visited the disputed premises, the same was found to be freshly white washed and outside the property a number of tables, chairs, cooler, bhathi made of drum, ceiling fans, padestal fans etc. were lying scattered; If is in these circumstances that the plaintiff prayed that he be put back in possession till the matter is finally decided by the Court.

3. In pursuance to the notice issued by the Court, the defendants put in appearance and resisted the application. As per the case set up by the defendants, the plaintiff had banded over the vacant possession of the demised premises voluntarily on 19.8.1994 and so the suit as well as the present application is an after-thought. Since the plaintiff was not in possession on the date he approached the Court, he is not entitled to restoration of possession.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case made mention of the filing of the suit on 20.8.1994 which was taken up for consideration on 22.8.1994 and as per the request made by the plaintiff, Local Commissioner was appointed on 22.8.1994. According to the counsel, the petitioner was in possession of the suit property on 20.8.1994 and as he has been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, the trial Court ought to have, in the circumstances of the case, ordered its restoration till the matter is finally decided. Reference was made to the report of the Local Commissioner who observed that the property has been freshly white washed and the words Kings Hotel/Kwality Ice-Cream were visible despite this white-wash. Similarly, the Local Commissioner noticed various articles like chairs, tables, cooler, bhathi made of drum, ceiling fans, wooden counter, pedestal fans, curtain rods etc. lying scattered in the open place in front of the property in dispute. Criticising the view taken by the court, the counsel urged that the same is highly conjectural. In fact, as admitted by the defendants also, the plaintiff was in possession as a lessee and so was only served with a notice to quit on 19.81994. Thus till 19.8.1994, it was reasonable to infer that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. However, in what manner he gave up his possession is indeed not understandable. The trial, Court has tried to make out a case which perhaps even the defendants did not intend to plead. Similarly, the trial Court observation that since no report had been lodged with the local police or administration is an indication that he was not in possession of the property in dispute is again erroneous. Since the civil court was seized of the matter wherein an application had been filed for interim stay as well as appointment of a Local Commissioner, non lodging of report with the police could not be taken as a factor for declining the petitioners just prayer for restoration.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, highlighted the fact that the petitioner has been a defaulter. According to the counsel, during all these years, he did not pay any lease money despite a number of notices iss