Mangli Ram vs Punjab Wakf Board and Others

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the order of learned Addl. District Judge Rohtak dated 5.12.1997 passed in Civil Appeal No. 141 of 4.11.1997 confirming the orders of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Rohtak dated 29.10.1997.

The plaintiff is the petitioner. He filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him from the suit land. According to the case of the plaintiff, he was a tenant under the Gram Panchayat till 1978 when the suit property was transferred to the Waqf Board and he was attorned to the Waqf Board and he has been paying rent to the latter and for the year 1996-97, he has paid a sum of Rs. 4,100/- as the rent and some time in June and July, 1987, the Waqf Board auctioned the lease hold rights in the land in which the respondents 3 to 6 became the bidders and that the respondents are trying to evict him from the suit land. Therefore, he filed this suit. Along with the suit he filed an application for temporary injunction which has been negatived by both the courts below. Hence this revision petition. Admittedly, the petitioner is the tenant in the suit land. He has also paid the rent for the year 1996-97. According to the plaintiff, he cannot be evicted from the land in dispute except in due course of law. It is the case of the Waqf Board that the plaintiff has been dispossessed sometime in June, 1997, on his voluntarily surrendering possession but no evidence to this effect has been produced. Therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that the plaintiff surrendered possession. On the other hand, both the courts below rejected the grant of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff solely on the ground that no injunction can be granted against true owner. The said principle applies only to a trespasser. There cannot be any doubt that no injunction can be granted against the true owner but this is a case where the plaintiff is a tenant of the land in dispute. A tenant can only be evicted after following the procedure prescribed under the statute - in this case, the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953.

The learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 6 contended that the plaintiff executed a Qabuliatnama on June 30, 1996, for one year only and, therefore, he has got no right to continue in possession subsequent to June 30, 1997, i.e., on the expiry of the term of lease. But the fact remains that the petitioner has been a tenant in possession for the last 20 years under the Gram Panchayat and subsequently under the Waqf Board by attornment. When the plaintiff has been admittedly a tenant for 20 years he cannot be evicted except in due course of law. Admittedly, the possession is with the plaintiff. In this view of the matter, I am prima facie of the view that the plaintiff cannot be evicted during pendency of the suit.

I, therefore, allow the revision petition, set aside the orders of the courts below and grant a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from evicting the plaintiff forcibly during pendency of the suit. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.