1 ( 2025:HHC:14776 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.93 of 2022 Date of Decision : 20.05.2025 Rajan Katyayan and another …… Petitioners Versus Sudhershan Kumar Sharma ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. B.L. Soni, Mr. Nitin Soni and Mr. Sunil Gautam, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petitioners are the defendants before the trial Court. The respondent had filed a suit for mandatory and permanent prohibitory injunction before the trial Court. In the suit so filed, the respondent admits that the present petitioners/defendants are the owners of the suit premises. In the suit, the respondents categorically avers that he has been dispossessed on 28.08.2020. Besides the aforesaid, in the suit so filed, it has further been averred that the respondent had been inducted as tenants in the suit premises by the petitioners/defendants. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:14776 ) 2. Per contra, in the written statement so filed, possession of the respondent/plaintiff qua the suit premises is denied. Numerous objections are taken and on merits, it is submitted that there is no landlord-tenant relationship inter se the parties. 3. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the present case, both the Courts, while considering an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code and an appeal preferred there against by the present petitioners agree that the respondent is out of possession of the demised premises. 4. Despite coming to the said conclusion, the Courts below have restrained the present petitioners from operating the shop/leasing out the same during the pendency of the present petition. Once, the respondent/plaintiff has been held to be out of possession, no injunction can be granted in his favour. 5. Therefore, in the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, judgment dated 09.09.2021 passed by learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, in Civil Misc. Appeal No.7(11) of 2020, affirming interim order dated 13.10.2020, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahual and Spiti at Kullu, District Kullu, in C.M.A. No.115-VI/2020, restraining the present petitioners/defendants from operating the shop in question or leasing out the same to anyone, is quashed. 3 ( 2025:HHC:14776 ) The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) May 20, 2025 (KS) Judge