RAJ KUMAR Vs. KAMLESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff Raj Kumar, having failed to secure temporary injunction from both the courts below, has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Plaintiff-petitioner was tenant over the disputed shop under landlord Mahabir Parshad (since deceased and represented by defendants/respondents). Mahabir Parshad filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 against the plaintiff. The same was allowed ex-parte vide order dated 14.10.2005 (Annexure P-1) and plaintiff herein was directed to be ejected from the demised shop.

(2.) In the instant suit, the plaintiff has alleged that subsequent to ejectment order dated 14.10.2005 (Annexure P-1), defendants agreed to sell the disputed shop to the plaintiff vide agreement dated 07.02.2006. However, in spite thereof, the defendants filed execution petition for executing ejectment order (Annexure P-1). The plaintiff sought temporary injunction restraining the defendants from doing so during pendency of the suit, which has been instituted for declaration and specific performance of the aforesaid agreement dated 07.02.2006.

(3.) Defendants resisted the application for temporary injunction. Alleged agreement to sell dated 07.02.2006, set up by the plaintiff, was denied. It was pleaded to be forged and fabricated document. Defendants claimed their legal right to execute the ejectment order (Annexure P-1).