Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.