(1.) This revision is directed against the order of Courts below whereby the petitioner has been restrained from taking possession of the property in pursuance of an order of ejectment passed in his favour.
(2.) Ejectment petition was filed as far back as on 2.1.1973 when their father Ganda Singh made an application for ejectment of his tenant Rai Saheb Mehta on the ground of personal necessity as well as on the ground that he had sublet the same to Surinder Mohan Mehta. Ejectment petition was decided on 17.9.1973. It was on the basis of a statement made by the tenant who surrendered a part of the premises and agreed to surrender the remaining part of the premises on or before 31.12.1975. Consequently, in these terms order of ejectment was passed. Possession of the remaining part of the premises was not delivered and this led to the filing of execution application in March, 1976. Surinder Mohan Mehta preferred objections against this execution. He again compromised and made a statement on 19.10.1979 agreeing to vacate the premises on or before 30.12.1981. He did not vacate the premises. Ganda Singh died on 19.3.1982 without getting into possession of the premises. When son of Ganda Singh who is a petitioner herein, got revived execution proceedings, Surinder Mohan Mehta filed fresh objection petition on 5.3.1983 alleging that Ganda Singh, during his life time i.e. on 5.1.1982 got executed a rent note in his favour. He, therefore, contended that fresh tenancy came into being and he is in possession as a tenant. He was given opportunity to produce evidence to substantiate the so-called fresh tenancy. He took 26 opportunities but failed to produce any evidence. Consequently, the objection petition was dismissed. This order was challenged by way of Civil Revision No. 3582 of 1985 which was dismissed by this Court on 10.12.1985. He preferred SLP in the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 15.1.1988. The dismissal of SLP did not deter him and instead of delivering possession of the premises, filed a civil suit for declaration setting up tenancy in his favour which was earlier set up before the Executing Court. The trial Court as well as the Appellate Court granted ad interim injunction on the plea of fresh tenancy set up but dismissed the objection petition on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. This order is being impugned by son of Ganda Singh here in this civil revision.
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, I am of the view that his civil revision deserves to succeed. The Courts below while granting ad interim injunction have not kept in view the well established principle of law that the party to the suit is entitled to reap the fruit of decree and its execution is not to be stayed lightly in another suit. Tenant, in this case, had delayed his eviction after having entered into a compromise and after having agreed to vacate the premises. By availing considerable time from the landlord, he filed to vacate the premises. Landlord had to revive the execution proceedings in which the tenant again compromised. But instead of vacating the premises, he set up a fresh tenancy. His objections were dismissed by the Executing Court. He did not succeed in SLP too. After having failed in his objection, he filed suit and an application for ad-interim injunction restraining the tenant from executing the eviction order. The Courts below, without going into the conduct of the tenant, grante ad interim injunction. Counsel for the respondent has not been able to satisfy as to how the respondent has a prima facie case in his favour. If the petitioner is restrained from executing a decree which he obtained lawfully, petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and it would amount to denying him possession which otherwise he would be entitled to. The Court should be slow in granting ad interim injunction restraining execution of a lawful decree affirmed by superior Court. Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained.