TRIPATJIT KAUR Vs. PUNJAB FINANCIAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff -petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant revision petition, impugning the order dated 12.11.2002 whereby the trial Court though granted interim injunction against defendant No.1, but declined the same qua defendants No.2 and 3. The said order was affirmed on appeal by the lower appellate Court vide order dated 19.04.2003.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts which may be noticed for the disposal of the present revision petition are that as per averments made in the plaint, originally property No.B -XXI -1575 situated at Dholewal, Ludhiana was owned by Pakhar Singh, father of defendant No.1, who died about two years before the filing of the suit. The husband of plaintiff No.1 took on rent one shop at a monthly rent of Rs.450/ - from Pakhar Singh in the year. Plaintiff No.1 claimed that she was in possession of the shop as a tenant and her tenancy was protected under the provision of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act and similarly plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 took different shops on rent from said Pakhar Singh in the years 1978 and 1990, respectively, which form part of property No.B -XXI -1875. After the death of Pakhar Singh, his son Manjit Singh, defendant No.1, had been collecting rent from them. The property in dispute was mortgaged by the son of Pakhar Singh in favour of the Punjab Financial Corporation in the year, 1996 to secure a loan and he submitted the affidavits dated 11.06.1996 and 07.09.1996 with the Punjab Financial Corporation stating therein that he was owner in possession of the suit property. Upon his having defaulted in the payment of loan, the Punjab Financial Corporation initiated action against him under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for short 169 the Act 170) and thereby wanted to take possession of the suit property from the plaintiff -petitioners. It was thereafter that the plaintiff petitioners approached the civil court seeking permanent injunction primarily on the ground that they were inducted as tenants by Pakhar Singh prior to the mortgage and the Punjab Financial Corporation was not authorised to take possession from them under Section 29 of the Act as the same can only be taken in accordance with law. As noticed earlier, the courts have declined the interim injunction to the plaintiff -petitioners qua defendants No.2 and 3. Hence, they have approached this Court by way of the present revision petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the orders passed by the Courts below.