The relevance of possession at the time of the suit in considering the prevention of forcible and illegal dispossession.

P.S. Patwalia, J. - The present revision petition has been filed by the defendants against concurrent findings recorded by the trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court allowing an application filed by the plaintiff for interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure restraining the petitioner, defendant No. 2 in the suit from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property forcibly and. illegally during the pendency of the trial, except by following due course of law.

2. Respondent No. 1, plaintiff in the suit had filed the suit alleging that she is a tenant in House No. 4 Sector 27-A, Chandigarh since 1966. According to her she is in occupation of the entire house except one room stated to be a garage which is in occupation of the petitioner as a tenant. She contended that both the defendants were trying to dispossess her from the tenanted premises forcibly and illegally. Therefore she filed the present suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in her possession over the aforesaid property. The defendants contested the suit by filing reply. They claimed that the plaintiff was not in possession of the entire house as claimed by her. According to them defendant No. 2 was tenant in occupation of one room but he had a right to use a common toilet and bathroom. He contended that the room had two entries, one from the front and other from the common passage in center of the said house. The toilet and bathroom were in the rear portion of the house and he was using the same by accessing the same from the common passage.

3. To assess the situation of the property, the trial Court appointed a Local Commissioner. The Local Commissioner visited the property and submitted a report. The report has been placed on the record of this revision as Annexure P-7.

4. After examining the pleadings of the parties and the report placed on the record the trial Court granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff with the following observations :-

"....It is pertinent to mention that Mr. Rajwinder Singh, Advocate, who was appointed Local Commission had filed his L.C. Report in the Court on 22.8.05 as per which he had visited the suit property on 12.8.2005. As per his report, defendant No. 2 was found to be in possession of one room depicted with letters A, B, C, D in his site plan in red colour and remaining portion was found in the possession of plaintiff except the fact that defendant No. 2 had installed exhaust part of his split A.C. on the roof top and there was a bathroom and toilet on the rear side of the suit property.

9. In my point of view, although defendant No. 1 landlord has sold away entire suit property to defendant No. 2 tenant and alleged to have handed over symbolic possession, but for the purposes of considering injunction, possession at the time of institution of suit is a relevant factor to consider prevention of forcible & illegal dis-possession by taking law in hand by any person.

10. Although, defendant No. 2 has installed exhaust part of his split. A.C. On the roof top of suit property, but having regard to the pleadings of the parties and L.C. report at this stage, prima facie, it comes out that defendant No. 2 is only in possession of the one room depicted with letters A, B, C, D in red colour in site plan and remaining portion of the suit property is in occupation of plaintiff including entire common passage and toilet & bathroom on the rear side never meant for use of defendant No. 2 and roof of the suit property also never remained in occupation of defendant No. 2."

5. The lower Appellate Court affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court with the following observations :-

"....In the light of the above backdrop after scanning the pleadings of the parties, the material placed on file and the impugned order passed by the lower court I find the present appeal filed by the appellants to be devoid of merits. Even Local Commissioner was app