PARO DEVI Vs. SUKH DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE skeltal facts which have given rise to this controversy are these. One Munna Lal was a tenant in the premises in dispute, which is a house within the municipal limits of Kot Kapura. He died in the year 1960, leaving behind his widow Sukh Devi respondent, three sons and a daughter. The landlord successfully sought an eviction order against one son of Munna Lal without impleading the other heirs of Munna Lal. In the meantime, the landlord also died and he was succeeded by his legal representatives. They wanted to execute the ejectment order. In this situation, the widow of Munna Lal, the respondent herein, filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the successor-landlords from ejecting her forcibly and without due course of law, or in execution of the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller, afore-refered to against one of the sons of Munna Lal. She based her claim on the assertion that she had inherited tenancy rights and had been residing in the premises as tenant. She also filed an application for the grant of a temporary injunction restraining the successor-landlords from dispossessing herein the manner aforesaid. The suit is being contested by the defendant-petitioners herein. They contested the application for temporary injunction as well. The trial Court denied the respondent the injunction, but the appellate Court finding a prima facie case in her favour as also the balance of convenience, thereby granted her the injunction asked for. The defendant-petitioners have approached this Court in revision.

(2.) MR . Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the respondent was in the know of the earlier proceedings for ejectment which were hotly contested and went on for a number of years. From the fact that the respondent remained silentl this while, it is commented that the suit is mala fide and the respondent had been set up by the judgment-debtor of the eviction case in order to prolong possession. Further, it is contended that it has yet to be established if she was in possession of the property in dispute for the case of the petitioners is that she was a priest in some temple and not residing in the premises.

(3.) LET the suit be expedited. Petition dismissed.