PRAVEEN KUMAR Vs. VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 who is the main contesting party. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed on behalf of petitioners, and both the learned counsel for parties have agreed that petition may be disposed of finally at this stage. It is relevant to mention here that respondents 3 to 25 are pro forma parties and they have not been contesting the proceedings at any stage and the petition may be disposed of finally even in their absence and from the facts it is clear that no prejudice will be caused to them.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent No. 2 filed Original Suit No. 1022 of 1992 claiming a decree of permanent injunction restraining petitioners not to dispossess her from the shop in dispute in pursuance of the decree dated 12-5-1979, passed in Original Suit No. 287 of 1977. She has claimed herself as tenant of the shop No. 84 (old), new number 332, situate in Mohalla Sabji Mandi, Kotla, Chaupala, Ghanta Ghar, City and District Meerut, being daughter of Hussain Bux, the original tenant who died in the year 1960, leaving behind a large number of heirs. Plaintiff claimed that after death of her father. She became tenant along with other heirs and she continued throughout to share the income and the tenancy rights. It was further stated that she was not party in Suit No. 287 of 1977 nor her tenancy was terminated by notice under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and her tenancy is still subsisting and she cannot be legally ejected from the shop in dispute. The decree passed in the aforesaid suit is not binding on her. This suit was filed some time in October, 1992. In this suit, respondent No. 2 also filed an application under O. 39, R. 1, C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction and also for the relief that she may not be dispossessed from the shop in dispute during pendency of the suit. The application was contested by petitioners who are the decree-holders of Suit No. 287 of 1977, on various pleas.

(3.) The trial Court by order dated 24-11-1992 rejected the application of respondent No. 2. The order was challenged in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 347 of 1992. Appellate Court has allowed the appeal by judgment and order dated 11-1-1993 and petitioners have been restrained from dispossessing respondent No. 2 from the premises in dispute till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the appellate Court petitioners have approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.