The main legal point established in the judgment is that exclusive possession of a property, as evidenced by legal documents and supported by legal precedent, can entitle a party to seek injunction against interference by another party.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges order dated 23.4.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala concurring with the order dated 9.9.2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Patiala partly dismissing the application of the plaintiff-petitioner for grant of ad interim injunction wherein prayer was made for restraining the defendant-respondent from interfering in his peaceful and exclusive possession of the staircase and the roof of the first floor or from using the same during the pendency of the suit.

2. Few facts necessary for deciding the controversy raised are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 273 dated 31.8.2002 seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent or any one else on his behalf from interfering in his peaceful possession as a tenant of the shop in dispute or dispossessing the plaintiff-petitioner illegally and forcibly or from causing any damage to the aforementioned premises by effecting the additions or alterations. An application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code) was also filed praying that the plaintiff-petitioner has been running his business in the shop in dispute under the name and style of Mani Musico and regularly paying the rent against the receipt. The rent for the month of July, 2002 had been paid by him at the rate of Rs. 1500/- and a photostat copy of the receipt was produced on the record. The defendant-respondent, has been running his business under the name and style of Handloom Palace on the ground floor only without any basement. The staircase and the upper floors are in exclusive possession of the plaintiff-petitioner, It has further been alleged that the defendant-respondent has no approach to the upper floors in any manner because the only access to the upper floor was through the staircase which was built inside the rented premises and in possession of the plaintiff-petitioner. The defendant-respondent claimed that he had purchased the entire property and on the basis of the same became owner of the disputed premises.

3. The defendant-respondent asserted that the plaintiff-petitioner has been a tenant on the first floor and the second floor was in his possession. It was further claimed that the defendant-respondent was in possession of the second floor of the premises and the stair case depicted in the site plan was common for the use of plaintiff-petitioner and the defendant-respondent. A photocopy of the rent note dated 23.12.1984 has been placed on record. In the rent note, it has been mentioned that the tenant would have concern with the roof of the Chaubara although it has not been expressly excluded in the tenancy. It is in these circumstances that the Courts below took the view that the plaintiff-petitioner has remained unable to prove that he was in possession of the staircase-passage in dispute as a tenant as depicted in the site plan and the second floor of the shop in dispute. The defendant-respondent having admitted the plaintiff-petitioner to be in possession of the first floor as tenant and has also admitted that he had no intention to cause any damage to the walls of the premises under the tenant of the plaintiff-petitioner, the trial Court partly accepted the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code and restrained the defendant-respondent from causing any interference with the possession of the plaintiff-petitioner over the first floor of the shop in dispute and from using the passage in question for access to the shop. The defendant-respondent has further been restrained from causing any damage to the shop in possession of the plaintiff-petitioner as tenant. However, the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner restraining the defendant-respondent from interfering in his peaceful possession over the second floor of the shop in dispute or the stair case was declined. Feeling aggrieved, the pl