A landlord retains legal and constructive possession of property despite leasing it to a tenant. Consequently, the landlord has the locus standi to institute a suit for permanent injunction against third-party trespassers to protect the property interest, notwithstanding the lack of actual physical possession.

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar, in Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2008, Smt. Kanta Sachdeva vs. Nagar Palika Parishad, Roorkee and Another, whereby the said appeal has been allowed and the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Roorkee, District Haridwar, in Original Suit No. 51 of 2003 has been set-aside and thereby the appellate court has decreed the suit for permanent injunction.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 herein instituted a suit for permanent injunction against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Roorkee, with the pleadings that the plaintiff had purchased land situated within Khasra Nos. 490 and 497, Village Ganeshpur, Roorkee, from the previous Bhumidhar with transferable rights, who was the owner in possession, namely Kunwar Rajendra Singh, through sale deeds dated 17.08.2000 and 16.01.2003. Further, in respect of Khasra No. 490, the plaintiff also purchased land from Sri Narendra Verma and Sri Yogesh Mathur through a registered sale deed dated 30.01.2003 and came into possession as Bhumidhar with transferable rights pursuant to the said sale deeds. The purchased property is situated at Dehradun Bypass road.

3. It is further pleaded that the property purchased by the plaintiff is recorded as Abadi in the revenue records since the past and it does not fall within the definition of “land” as defined under Section 3(14) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The plaintiff leased out the said property to defendant No. 3 for 30 years on the basis of an NOC issued by the District Magistrate, Haridwar, for operating a retail outlet of petrol/diesel, in which the containers of defendant No. 3 are installed, wherein approximately 1200 litres of petrol is stored. On the property, a big pit was dug. A container having a capacity of more than 2,000 litres has been installed and thereafter filled with petrol. On the property, actual possession is of the lessee/tenant, defendant No. 3, and the possession of the lessee/tenant is treated as the possession of the landlord/owner.

4. In addition to this, a large area of land in the vicinity was also demarcated, which took several days, but the defendants never raised any objection to it. In the plaint, there is a reference to a previous suit which was decided in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff. There is also a pleading with respect to an earlier survey and demarcation of Khasra No. 490 on the orders of the Hon’ble High Court. There is also a reference that after measurement on the spot of Khasra Nos. 490 and 495, the parties to Suit No. 130/96 arrived at a compromise and the case was decided. It is further pleaded that during the pendency of Suit No. 130/96, the plaintiff purchased the property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 16.01.2003 and obtained possession on the spot and was impleaded as a party in the case, thereby acquiring all rights which were vested in the vendor Rajendra Singh Jain, whose name was recorded in the revenue records as Bhumidhar with transferable rights.

5. That it was further pleaded in the plaint that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have no concern with the property in question, but are unauthorizedly and without any ba