HARI SINGH Vs. JAGAT SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE chequered history of this case is that Wadhawa Singh rented out the shop in question to Hari Singh. After his death, Wadhawa Singh was succeeded by his tons Ujagar Singh and Jagat Singh. Then Ujagar Singh died leaving behind his widow Kartar Kaur, two daughters and three sons. The eviction proceedings were launched against Hari Singh by Jagat Singh and Kartar Kaur. The Rent Controller on 21st June, 1972, ordered the eviction of Hari Singh The appeal and revision filed by Hari Singh were dismissed by the District Judge and the High Court, respectively This chapter of litigation ended on 17th October, 1975.

(2.) FROM one of the sons, namely, Ajit Singh son of Ujagar Singh, 1/12th share in the estate, including the share of Ujagar Singh in the shop in question, was purchased by Hari Singh on 16th September, 1974 Another 1/12th share in the estate of Ujagar Singh, inherited by his daughter Surjit Kaur, was purchased by Hari Singh on 12th April, 1976. Thus, Hari Singh got 1/6th share in certain properties, including the shop in question. When execution proceedings were taken out against Hari Singh, he raised the plea of his having become a cosharer; but the same was rejected not only by the Executing Court but also by the High Court in revision Thereafter, Hari Singh filed suit for partition of his 1/6th share and rendition of accounts against the other cosharers. During the pendency there of, he applied for a temporary injunction under Order 39, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the order of eviction dated 21st June, 1972 ordered by the Rent Controller be not executed against him His application was rejected by the trill Court The appeal filed by him has been dismissed by the District Judge He has now preferred this appeal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for Jagat Singh and Kartar Kaur respondents vehemently urged that no case was made out at all to interfere with the discretion exercised by the two Courts below against Hari Singh and especially in view of the protracted litigation that has been going on, ever since the passing of the eviction order in June, 1972. Learned counsel for Hari Singh placed reliance on Rami Dahyabhai Somabhai v. Rami Jagjivan Motibhai and others, (1978) 1 R.C.J. 82 Banarasi Dass v. Devi Dayal : (1967) 69 P.LR. 417 and Madan Mohan v. Revti Prasad, (1978) 1 R.C.R. 175. These rulings are clearly distinguishable on facts. In the case in hand, apart from other considerations, the material fact is that Hari Singh does not have 1/6th share in the shop in question only As said already, there are other properties also in which he had the said shire. In the nature of things, it is not certain that in the partition proceedings, the entire shop in question would be given to him.