The petitioner is a plaintiff in the suit and a tenant of the premises in dispute. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant to evict him, except in accordance to law and an application for interim relief. The defendant filed the written statement stating therein that the petitioner was the tenant of a portion of the house, namely, two rooms, one kitchen and latrine and not the entire portion of the house, but the other portion of the house has been forcibly possessed by the petitioner. On the consideration of the fact that the petitioner is a tenant of only a portion of the house and not the entire portion of the house, the application for interim relief has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defendant has filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Etah and Senior Superintendent of Police, Etah and also before the Magistrate for the forceful possession of the property in dispute but the same has been rejected. He submitted that the possession of the entire house is not in dispute. Even if for the sake of argument, it is accepted that the petitioner has taken the forceful possession of other portion of the house in dispute but the fact remains that he is a tenant and he cannot be evicted except in accordance to law.
In support of the contention he relied upon the decision of the apex Court in the case of Rame Gowda (Dead) By LRs Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) By LRs. and another, reported in (2004) 1 SCC-769.
The matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to respondent, returnable at an early date. The petitioner may take steps to serve the respondent within two weeks.
List in week commencing 2.5.2011.
Till the next date of listing, the respondent may not evict the petitioner from the property in dispute except in accordance to law.
Order Date :- 16.3.2011 OP