Paro Devi and Others vs Sukh Devi

M.M. Punchhi, J.—The skeletal facts which have given rise to this controversy are these. One Muna Lal was a tenant in the premises in dispute, which is a house within the municipal limits of Kot Kapura. He died in the year 1960, leaving behind his widow Sukh Devi Respondent, three sons and a daughter. The landlord successfully sought an eviction order against one son of Muna Lan without impleading the other heirs of Munna Lal. In the meantime, the landlord also died and he was succeeded by his legal representatives. They wanted to execute the ejectment order. In this situation, the widow of Munna Lal, the Respondent herein, filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the successor-landlords from ejecting her forcibly and without due course of law, or in execution of the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller, afore-referred to, against one of the sons of Munna Lal. She based her claim on the assertion that she had inherited tenancy rights and had been residing in the premises as a tenant. She also filed an application for the grant of a temporary injunction restraining the successor-landlords from dispossessing her in the manner afore-stated. The suit is being contested by the Defendant-Petitioners herein. They contested the application for temporary injunction as well. The trial Court denied the Respondent the injunction, but the appellate Court finding a prima facie case in her favour as also the balance of convenience, thereby granted her the injunction asked for. The Defendant-Petitioners have approached this Court in revision.

Mr. Chopra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has vehemently contended that the Respondent was in the know of the earlier proceedings for ejectment which were hotly contested and went on for a number of years. From the fact that the Respondent remained silent all this while, it is commented that the suit is mala fide and the Respondent had been set up by the judgment-debtor of the eviction case in order to prolong possession. Further, it is contended that it has yet to be established if she was in possession of the property in dispute for the case of the Petitioners is that she was a priest in some temple and not residing in the premises.

Neither ground urged by the Petitioners'' counsel prevails. As held by the Supreme Court in Smt. Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar and Ors. CW 3441 of 1972 decided on 1st May, 1985 a decision by five Hon''ble Judges, a statutory tenant also has an estate or interest in the premises which can be inherited. It is also observed that the law is moving forward from the idea of contract to status, when a statutory tenant has been placed on the same footing as contractual tenant. In this view of the law and the widened definition of the word ''tenant'' used in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, which says that ''tenant'' means "any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable...." It is not necessary that one of the statutory tenants who has inherited the estate be in actual possession of the premises in dispute. This by no means is a final statement of law, but is enough to. create prima facie case in favour of the Respondent Undisputably, she succeeded to the estate of Munna Lal as one of the co-heirs. Undisputably, she was not a party to the earlier proceedings in which eviction order was successfully sought by the Petitioners. In execution of that order, they cannot be permitted to say that they can evict her as one of the statutory tenants has been ordered to foe evicted. Every heir succeeding to the estate has his or her own right to protect Thus, the view of the learned District Judge that there was balance of convenience in favour of the Respondent, as also prima facie case and that if the injunction was not granted she will suffer irreparable loss by being dispossessed from the property in dispute in execution of the eviction order, is perfectly sound and not to be altered in this petition. Accordingly the order is left uninterfered with. The petition is thus dismissed. It is made clear that nothing said herein would affect the merits of the case. The Respondent shall have his, costs.

Let the suit be expedited.