Kuldip Singh JUDGMENT
Kuldip Singh, J.
1. By the single judgment order, I shall dispose of two connected revision petitions bearing CR No. 1512 of 2015, titled as "Guramardeep Singh and another v. Ved Vyas and another" and 1574 of 2015, titled as "Punjab Wakf Board v. Ved Vyas and others", arising out of the same order dated 10.01.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Amritsar, as well as the order dated 19.09.2014 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, whereby ad interim injunction was granted in favour of plaintiff-respondent No. 1.
2. The facts of the case are extracted from CR No. 1574 of 2015.
3. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a suit for permanent injunction before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Amritsar, against the present petitioner-defendant No. 1-Punjab Wakf Board (for short the 'Board') as well as Guramardeep Singh and Rajkaran Singh, respondent-defendant Nos. 2 and 3 for permanent injunction for restraining them from dispossessing or interfering in his possession over the property consisted of two shops-cum-store and saw mill measuring 327 sq. yards, bearing khasra No. 209 Min. and 210 Min., situated at Verowal Road, Jandiala Guru, Tehsil and District Amritsar, illegally and forcibly in any manner.
4. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 claimed that the said land was leased out by the Board in the year 1965 and since then, he is in continuing possession of the said property as tenant. On 07.03.1990, the saw mill was burnt and it was reconstructed. FIR regarding the said incident was lodged. The Board executed a fresh order dated 02.03.2009 in respect of the said property @ ` 1,200/- per month commencing from 01.12.2007. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was paying the rent regularly. Defendant-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 claimed that they got the said property on rent from defendant No. 1-Board.
5. The stand of the Board in the written statement before the trial court was that though, the tenancy was created in favour of plaintiff-respondent No. 1, it was renewed in the year 2007 and same has been terminated by service of notice dated 24.01.2013 on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has sub-let some portion of property to one Parminderpal Singh son of Kashmir Singh without any written consent of the Board and the possession of the remaining property was transferred to one Harbans Lal son of Piara Lal, vide agreement dated 22.11.2012. Said Harbans Lal entered into further agreement dated 29.12.2012 in favour of Guramardeep Singh, defendant-respondent and Guramardeep Singh came in possession of the said property. It is further stated that Parminderpal Singh, who is in possession of 16sq. yards of the property out of the disputed property admitted the ownership of the Board and the said property was allotted to him, vide allotment order dated 28.02.2013 and he executed a lease deed in favour of the Board. Guramardeep Singh and Rajkaran Singh, defendant-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 being in possession of the remaining ownership of the Board applied for allotment of the said portion, which was allotted to them, vide order dated 30.04.2013 and they executed lease agreement in favour of the Board. Now, they are tenants/lease under the Board in their respective parts of the property since creation of said sub tenancy and execution of agreement dated 22.11.2012. It was also stated that property measuring 311 sq. yards have been leased to defendant-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and remaining portion of the property i.e. 16 sq. yards was leased out to Parminderpal Singh.
6. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was also filed........