The filing of additional affidavit and 'CD' in examination-in-chief would not prejudice the defendants, and the provision of electricity is a basic necessity during the pendency of the suit.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Vide this common order Civil Revision Nos.5588 and 5596 of 2017 are being decided.

2. Petitioner has assailed the order dated 01.08.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Panipat vide which two applications were decided. Civil Revision No.5588 of 2017 has been preferred against the dismissal of application whereby permission to tender additional/supplementary affidavit along with 'CD' was declined. Whereas, Civil Revision No.5596 of 2017 has been arisen qua the rejection of prayer made in the application for restoration of electricity connection.

3. Since common facts are involved in both the revision petitions, therefore, for brevity facts are being noticed from Civil Revision No.5588 of 2017.

4. Plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of demised premises i.e. shop No.3 on the ground that he took the aforesaid shop on rent from the defendants @ Rs. 20,000/- per month and was paying the rent regularly in advance through cash as well as cheques without any default. Defendants did not issue any receipt despite demand. Plaintiff was paying electricity bill and other charges directly to the Department as per actual consumption. Plaintiff was involved in the work of tailoring and the shop in question is being run under the name and style of R.K. Tailor, which is also registered with the Labour Department, Haryana. Defendants wanted to get the shop vacated and intended instances were quoted at the instance of the defendants which ultimately resulted in filing of the present suit.

5. The suit was contested by the defendants. Tenancy was denied, whereas the plaintiff being licensee was alleged. A counter-claim was set up by the defendants along with written statement to the effect that the plaintiff was a licensee and the licence had already expired on 30.11.2015 and, therefore, the plaintiff lost his right to keep his articles in the shop. Mandatory-cum-permanent injunction was sought, directing the plaintiff to remove his articles from the shop and occupation charges @ Rs. 50,000-/ per month were also claimed for use and occupation of the shop by the plaintiff.

6. After completion of the pleadings, the trial Court passed an order dated 02.05.2016 in the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, whereby it was observed that at the stage of deciding the application for interim injunction, the Court is not required to look into the minute details, but has to satisfy itself in respect of existence of prima facie case. Plaintiff claimed himself to be a licensee under the defendants, but no documentary evidence has been produced to prima facie satisfy the Court that the demised property was leased out to him. The lease beyond 11 months has to be registered. The plea of tenancy cannot be answered at this stage and the pleadings of the plaintiff do not make out a strong prima facie case for grant of interim injunction. The prayer for interim injunction was declined, however since the defendants had admitted the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and have also filed a counter-claim for mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to vacate the suit property, therefore, the possession of the plaintiff was admitted. The trial Court further observed that the defendants shall not take law in their hands and dispossess the plaintiff, except in due course of law.

7. Perusal of the order dated 02.05.2016 passed by the trial Court would show that at the one hand, the plea of tenancy at that stage was not prima facie favoured, but at the same time the possession of the plaintiff was acknowledged and it was observed that the defendants may take the possession in due course of law. The said order was upheld by the District Judge, Panipat vide order dated 10.07.2017.

8. Plaintiff while leading his evidence filed an additional affidavit in examination-in-Chief along with 'CD', highlighting that the rent was being paid through cheques drawn on Punjab National Bank, G.T., Road,