133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR No.427 of 2022 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 04-07-2022.

M/s English Language Institute and another

.......Petitioners

Versus

Rajesh Kumar and others

.......Respondents

CR No.428 of 2022 (O&M)

M/s English Language Institute and another

.......Petitioners

Versus

Rajesh Kumar and others

.......Respondents

CORAM:

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

*****

Present:-

Mr. Mayank Mathur, Advocate

for the petitioners.

Mr. Amandeep Singh Jattana, Advocate

for the respondents.

MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J

Vide this common judgment, both the above-mentioned

revision petitions are being decided together because these have arisen out

of the single order dated 19.01.2022 (Annexure P-1 in both the petitions)

passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala (for short ‘the trial

Court’) whereby the applications (Annexure P-7 in both the petitions)

moved by the petitioners-plaintiffs (here-in-after to be referred as ‘the

NEETU RANI

2022.07.04 18:42

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

PHHC

CR Nos.427 & 428 of 2022 (O&M)

-2-

plaintiffs’) for seeking the dismissal or in the alternative, the rejection of

the counter claims filed by the respondents-defendants (here-in-after to be

referred as ‘the defendants’) separately, have been dismissed.

2.

Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts culminating in the

filing of both the present revision petitions, are that the plaintiffs filed a

civil suit against the defendants for seeking a decree for permanent

injunction for restraining them (defendants) and their agents etc from

interfering in their (plaintiffs’) possession over the suit property, i.e the

Ground Floor portion of SCF Nos.33 & 34, Leela Bhawan Market, Patiala

and from forcibly dispossessing them from the same, while averring that

they (plaintiffs) had taken the said property on lease for running their

business. The defendants filed their written statement contesting the claim

of the plaintiffs therein on various grounds. They filed their separate

counter claims also for seeking the possession of the suit property on the

ground that the plaintiffs were in the arrears of lease money since March,

2020. Then, the plaintiffs moved two applications (Annexure P-7 in both

the petitions) for seeking the dismissal or in the alternative, the rejection of

the said counter claims and these applications have been dismissed by the

trial Court vide the impugned order Annexure P-1.

3.

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties in these

revision petitions and have also perused the files carefully.

4.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs (petitioners) has contended

that the defendants had leased out the suit property to the plaintiffs for a

period of six (06) years, vide two separate lease deeds dated 09.02.2018

NEETU RANI

2022.07.04 18:42

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

PHHC

CR Nos.427 & 428 of 2022 (O&M)

-3-

(Annexure P-2 in both the petitions) and on being threatened by them

(defendants) qua their dispossession from the same forcibly, the plaintiffs

filed the said suit for seeking a decree for permanent injunction and the

counter claims, as preferred by both the defendants therein, are not legally

maintainable because the suit property falls within the urban area and

hence, the provisions of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act of

1995’) are applicable to the same and it being so, the appropriate remedy

that can be available with the defendants to seek the possession of the suit

property, is to invoke the relevant provisions of the Act of 1995 for seeking

their (plaintiffs’) ejectment from the same and therefore, the afore-said

counter claims are liable to be dismissed or in the alternative