JAGDISH PRASAD AND OTHERS Vs. DAULAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Daulat Ram, the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction restraining the petitioners-defendants from interfering with his possession or demolishing or making construction over the suit property. According to the plaintiff, he was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises by Mukhtiyar of Devi Kishan of original owners Hira Lal and Sohan Lal and he has paid the rent from the years 1967 to 1983. The entries of the payment of the rent were entered in his diary. The rent paid was @ Rs.3/- p.m. In the year 1993, defendant purchased the suit property and when the plaintiff was out of station, a portion of the property was demolished with a view to get rid of the tenant. His brother resident of adjacent house made a report to the police and during the investigation, he was placed back in possession. An application for temporary injunction was filed on the same facts claiming relief restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and making construction over the suit property as he apprehends forcible eviction. As per the defendants-petitioners by registered sale deed dated 30-7-1993, they have purchased the suit property and they have been placed in possession by the owners Hira Lal and others through their Mukhtiyar. The suit property was vacant at the time of purchase and they were placed in possession It is also said that the plaintiff is not the tenant of the property nor is in possession of the same. The suit property was taken on rent by Mohan Lal from Champa Lal Jhanwar according to the F.I.R. lodged and, therefore, the story put forth by Daulat Ram that he is tenant of the suit premises, is false. In fact, the plaintiff is residing in a house, which is in front of the suit accommodation, which is owned by the defendants' parents and a suit of ejectment is pending against Daulat Ram, it is only to harass the landlord, these proceedings have been filed. To prove the factum of actual physical possession, the plaintiff has submitted his own affidavit, the affidavits of Lal Chand, Ashok Kumaq Mohan Lal, Govind Ram. Durga Das, Kishan Kumar and Shyam Sunder, who were the neighbours of the plaintiff and residing there since long. The plaintiff has also filed the affidavit of one Govind Ram, Postman, who has said in his affidavit that the applicant was residing in the suit house and he used to deliver letters at the plaintiffs address in the suit accommodation. On the other hand, the defendant has also filed the affidavits of Mohan Lal, Mangi Lal, Gaj Raj, Rakesh, Bhagwan Ram, Kalu Ram and Mahesh Kumar. They have relied on sale deed of the suit house executed in their favour wherein it is recited that the possession has been delivered. On consideration of the affidavits and the recital in the application of the year 1983 filed by Daulat Ram showing himself to be tenant of the suit premises @ Rs.3/- p.m., the lower appellate court has reached to the finding that prima facie it appears that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and granted injunction as claimed.

(2.) It is true that interlocutory injunction is asked for and is granted at the stage when the existence of the legal right is asserted by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and remains uncertain till they are established at the trial on the basis of the evidence. The courts while granting injunction act on settled principle on finding that there is a prima facie case, that is, question which requires adjudication by the court, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Once the court is of the opinion that plaintiff is in possession, then he cannot be ejected forcibly by taking the law in ones own hand. The interlocutory remedy is intended to preserve in status quo, the rights of the party which may appear on prima facie case. Thus, on establishment of the prima facie case as to the possession of the plaintiff, his possession should be maintained during the pendency of the suit. If a person in possession is dispossessed, he will naturally suffer irreparable injury and in that sense, the balance of convenience is also is in favour of the person in possession of the property. All necessary elements are present in the case of the plaintiff. The order passed by the lower appellate court is just, proper and is in accordance with law and passed in proper exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it.

(3.) The revision fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.