Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Sujata Kataria vs Shri Roop Singh Nagar And Ors. on 23 August, 1990
Equivalent citations: (1991)99PLR236
ORDER S.S. Sodhi, J.
1. The challenge here is to the ad interim injunction granted to the plaintiff restraining the defendants from dispossessing him in pursuance of the order of ejectment passed against the plaintiff, by the rent controller.
2. A reference to the record shows that on September 10, 1985, an order for ejectment was passed against the plaintiff on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent since July, 1982. When the plaintiff went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority, a compromise was entered into between the parties. This compromise was in the following terms : -
"The parties have come to terms. It is agreed that the ejectment order dated 10-9-1985 shall not be executed by the respondent against the appellant for a period of one year with effect from 9-11-1985. If the appellants pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondent by 8-11 1986, the premises in dispute shall stand transferred to them, i.e appellants. If, however, the appellants do not make that payment, the respondent shall be entitled to execute the ejectment decree."
The appeal was, thereafter disposed of in terms of this compromise.
3. It appears that the plaintiff did not pay the said amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the defendants and it is now stated at the bar that since the appeal and todate not amount has been paid by the plaintiff to the defendants even as arrears of rent for the demised premises. The defendant thereafter took out execution. The plaintiff filed objections on November 25, 1986. These objections to the execution of the ejectment order were dismissed on January 23, 1987. This order was then challenged in revision here in Civil Revision 1-48 of 1986 which was dismissed on February 2, 1987. It was thereafter that on March 20, 1987- The plaintiff filed the present suit seeking a decree for specific performance founded upon the compromise before the appellate authority. Alongwith it, an application for temporary injunction was also filed to restrain the defendants from executing the order of ejectment passed against the plaintiff by the rent controller.
4. The significant point to note here is that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties still stands as admittedly todate, no amount has been paid by the plaintiff to the defendants whether as arrears of rent or as payment of purchase price of this property under the compromise between the parties.
5. Such being the situation, no occasion was clearly provided for the issuance of any ad interim injunction to the plaintiff to restrain the defendants from recovering possession of the demised premises in execution of the order of ejectment obtained by them.
6. Faced with this situation, counsel for the plaintiff sought to press in aid the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act by putting forth the contention that in view of the compromise, the Plaintiff was in possession of property in suit as an intending purchaser. This is indeed a wholly untenable stand in view of the clear terms of a compromise and the fact that no amount has been paid thereunder by the plaintiff to the defendants even todate.
7. The grant of temporary injunction to the plaintiff cannot, but be described as wholly unwarranted. The injunction granted to the plaintiff is accordingly hereby vacated and this revision petition is consequently accepted with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-.