KESHAR DEVI Vs. SH. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KESHAR Devi, defendant-petitioner, filed eviction petition under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act against the plaintiff-tenant on ground of personal necessity, non-payment of rent etc. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application. However, in appeal, the parties entered into a compromise, and the tenant agreed that the ejectment order be passed against him and he may be allowed up to 30th June, 1983, for vacating the premises. On the basis of that compromise, the eviction order was passed on 7th February, 1980, by the Appellate Authority. After the expiry of that period upto 30th June, 1983, when execution was sought, objections were filed on behalf of the tenant. There again, the parties entered into another agreement and the tenant agreed to vacate the premises on or before 1st March, 1985. In spite of these orders, the tenant did not vacate the premises and filed the present suit on 21st February, 1985 for a declaration that the said orders of eviction were illegal, and consequently, sought the relief of permanent injunction. Along with the suit,. he also moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, for grant of ad-interim injunction, which was contested on behalf of the defendant-landlord. The learned trial court vide its order 13th May, 1985, dismissed the application, with the observations "I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that this suit is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court." However, in appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the said order of the trial court and granted the ad interim injunction on 6th November, 1985. However, the learned Additional District June while discussing the impugned order based on the compromise, dated 12th September, 1983, observed as followed:-

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel or the parties I am the considered view that the lower appellate court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction causing failure of justice. There was absolutely no equity in favor of the plaintiff in whose favour the ad interim injunction has been passed by the learned Additional District Judge. As a matter of fact, the trial court rightly observed that the suit was nothing but an abuse of the process of court. By these tacties, the tenant has delayed the eviction after having entered into a compromise and by availing of time from the landlord. Thus, the whole approach of the lower appellate court was misconceived. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief by way of ad interim injunction as he was estopped by his act and conduct to claim any such relief from the court. Consequently, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and that of the trial court dismissing the application for ad interim injunction is hereby restored with costs. Costs assessed Rs. 1,000/-. However, the plaintiff-respondent (tenant) is allowed two months time to vacate the premises and hand over its vacant possession to the landlord along with all the arrears of rent up to date. In case, this direction is not complied with and an affidavit to this effect is not filed in this court by 15th May, 1986, notice be issued to the respondent Roshan Lal Pasricha udner the Contempt of Court Act for abusing the process of court by filing a frivolous suit. Petition succeeds.