BHAGIRATH RAM ALIAS BHAGIRATH PARSHAD Vs. SHIV KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the tenant-petitioner against the order of the Rent Controller, Ambala dated August 7, 1982.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that the property in dispute was purchased by Smt. Shiv Kumari. Bhagirath Ram, now the petitioner was a tenant in its first floor. He filed a suit for possession by pre-emption regarding the property in his possession. Later, an application for ejectment was filed by Smt. Shiv Kumar against him in which he moved an application that the proceedings therein be stayed till the decision of the suit filed by him for possession by pre-emption. The application was dismissed. Consequently, he had come up in revision against that order to this Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length. I, however, regret my inability to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not necessary to elaborate the point as a similar question has been decided by this Court in Madan Lal and others v. Dil Singh, 1982 P.L.R. 63. In that case also a suit by way of pre-emption was filed by a tenant. The vendees instituted proceedings against him for ejectment under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures act. In the pre-emption suit, the tenant moved an application for an interim injunction restraining the vendees from proceeding with the ejectment proceedings. The trial Court accepted the application and issued ad interim injunction as prayed for. The appeal against that order was dismissed. In revision, S.P. Goyal, J. set aside the order and vacated the injunction order. It was held by the learned Judge that by pursuing the suit for ejectment, the vendees were neither threatening to dispossess the plaintiff nor to cause any injury to him in relation to the suit property because the threat or the injury necessary implies the commission of a wrongful act. When a person pursues his legal remedy in a court of law, may be to eject the plaintif, he cannot, by any stretch of reasoning be said to threaten to dispossess or cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to the suit property. The vendees were committing no wrong in pursuing the ejectment proceedings. The learned Judge also distinguished Rikhi Ram' case (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I agree with the observations made in the above said case.