Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 1010 of 1982, decided on 21st September, 1982.

‑‑‑ O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2‑Interim injunction‑Case prima facie not in favour of petitioner‑Injunction, held, cannot be granted even if balance of convenience in favour of petitioner and petitioner likely to suffer irreparable loss in absence of injunction.‑[Balance of con venience].

‑‑ O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2 and West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13‑Temporary injunction, grant of Discretionary with Civil Judge‑Exercise of discretion against petitioner/ tenant who failed to establish before Rent Controller and District judge that his successor‑in‑interest was transferred premises in question by Settlement Department, held, laudible.

If temporary injunctions are allowed in ejectment cases it will virtually set‑ at naught proceedings held it ejectment matters and thus time and money spent on those proceedings will all go waste. It will also prolong agony of landlord whose efforts to get possession of his property are opposed by tenant by raising frivolous plea of absence of relationship of landlord and tenant. In practice ejectment cases are heard and decided like civil suits and take years to finalise. If after his success in ejectment proceedings, landlord is again faced with 'a civil suit brought by tenant to assert his title to disputed premises and he is allowed to remain in posses sion thereof during pendency of suit, landlord will have to wait for several years more to reap fruits of ejectment order obtained by him. On the question of title the civil Court is not bound by the orders made in the ejectment proceedings but the result of those proceedings deserves to be taken into consideration for allowing or refusing temporary relief sought in the civil suit. This was very rightly done in the instant case by the two Courts below. No legitimate exception can, therefore, be taken to the refusal of temporary injunction by them.

Syed Laqa Haider Zaidi for Petitioner.

The facts giving rise to this civil revision are that respondent No. 4, Abdul Majid, filed an application against the petitioner, Abdul Shakoor, and respondents Nos. I to 3, Haji Shaukat and 2 others, for their eviction from certain premises. It was alleged by respondent No. 4 that the disputed premises were part of house No. 437 which was trans ferred to him as an evacuee property under the Displaced Persons (Com pensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and since the petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were occupying the said premises at the time of the transfer of the house, they were his statutory tenants by virtue of the provi sions of section 30 of the said Act. The petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 to 3 denied existence of relationship of landlord and tenants between the parties. It was averred by them that the premises in question were not part of house No. 437. According to them, the said premises were part of house No. 438 which was transferred to their father, Noor Muhammad, as an evacuee property under the said Act. Noor Muhammad has since died and the petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are his successors‑in- interest. A Rent Controller of Jhang, who heard the ejectment matter, accepted the plea raised by the petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 to 3 with the result that the ejectment petition was dismissed. Respondent No. 4 filed an appeal against the order of learned Rent Controller which was accepted by the District Judge, Jhang. He reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller and after holding that the disputed premises were part of house No. 437 passed an order of eviction against the petitioner and respon dents Nos. 1 to 3. Thereafter the petitioner filed a civil suit against the respondents claiming declaration to the effect that he was owner of the premises in dispute. He also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession over the said premises. Alongwith the suit, he made an application for temporary injunction to the above effect. The temporary injunction was refused by the Civil Judge who was seized of the suit. The appeal taken by him before an Additional District Judge has also failed. Hence this revision petition.

2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the peti tioner was entitled to the grant of interim relief because the question of title is to be ultimately decided by the Civil Court. I agree with the learned counsel that the concurrent finding recorded in the ejectment matter that respondent No. 4 is transferee of the disputed premises is subject to the verdict of the Civil Court but this consideration alone does not warrant the grant of interim relief to the petitioner. In order to secure that relief he bad to satisfy the learned trial Court that he had a prima facie case. In view of the concurrent finding of the learned Rent Controller and the learned District Judge that the petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were statutory tenants of respon dent No. 4 qua the disputed premises, apparently respondent No. 4 is owner of the said premises. In other words, on the question of title there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, even if the balance of convenience is in his favour and he is likely to suffer an irreparable loss in the absence of the temporary injunction, the said injunction cannot be issued in his favour.

3. It was discretionary with the learned Civil Judge to grant the temporary injunction and he had done well in exercising the discretion against the petitioner who had tailed to establish before the learned Rent Controller and the learned District Judge that his successor‑in‑interest was transferee of the premises in question. If temporary injunctions are allowed in such like cases it will virtually set at naught the proceedings held in the ejectment matters and thus the time and money spent on those proceedings will all go waste. It will also prolong the agony of the landlord whose effort to get possession of his property are opposed by the tenant by raising the frivolous plea of absence, of relationship of landlord and tenant. We all know that, in practice, the ejectment cases are heard and decided like civil suits and, therefore they take years to finalise. If after his success in the ejectment proceedings, the landlord is again faced with a civil suit brought by the tenant to assert his title to the disputed premises and he is allowed to remain in possession thereof during the pendency of the suit, the landlord will have to wait for several years more to reap the fruits of the ejectment order obtained by him. I am conscious of the fact that on the question of title the Civil Court is not bound by the orders made in the ejectment proceedings but the result of those proceedings deserves to be taken into consideration for allowing or refusing temporary relief sought in the civil suit. This was exactly done in the instant case by the two Courts below and, to my mind, very rightly. No legitimate exception can, therefore, be taken to the refusal of temporary injunction by them.

4. Resultantly, this civil revision fails. It is dismissed in limine.

M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.