2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2032
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
CR No.1208 of 2009 (O&M)
Ajmel Singh
v.
Kulwinder Singh & Anr.
{Decided on 14/05/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.P.S. Mann, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
It is well settled that admission is the best mode of proof--Once a tenant always a tenant until and unless the tenancy is terminated and the tenant is evicted from the premises by an order of competent Court of law.
Temporary Injunction--Admission--At stage of interim injunction, the affidavit filed in the Court, with caveat application cannot be ignored as it contains an admission on the part of the defendants that plaintiff is in possession as a tenant.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.39, R.1 and 2--Temporary Injunction--Application filed by the defendants before the trial Court under Section 148-A of the CPC, at the time of lodging caveat application along with an affidavit of the General Power of Attorney of both the respondents, it has been admitted that the plaintiff is a tenant over the shop in dispute without stating that his tenancy has been terminated or he has been evicted by any order of the competent Court of law--Therefore, at stage of interim injunction, the affidavit filed in the Court, though, with the caveat application cannot be ignored as it contains an admission on the part of the defendants that plaintiff is in possession as a tenant--It is well settled that admission is the best mode of proof--It is also well settled that once a tenant always a tenant until and unless the tenancy is terminated and the tenant is evicted from the premises by an order of competent Court of law--Learned Court below should not have directed parties to maintain status quo rather plaintiff should have granted interim injunction to restrain defendants from interfering in his possession especially when there is an allegation that they had already tried to dispossess them forcibly as defendants had come to premises in question along with their henchmen and had removed certain articles belonging to plaintiff lying in his almirah--Defendants are restrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over shop in dispute till decision of the main suit. (Para 7 & 8)
