Shariff vs Smt. Nanak Kaur and Others

Sat Pal, J.—This petition has been directed against the order dated 20.5.1997 passed by Additional District Judge, Jagadhari, By this order, the learned Additional District Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against the order passed by the learned trial Court by which the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for interim injunction was dismissed.

Mr. Dinarpur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the plaintiff-petitioner was inducted as a tenant by the respondent-landlord who had become the owner of the suit land having been allotted to him by the Rehabilitation Department. He further submitted that the allotment in favour of the respondent was cancelled by the rehabilitation Department vide order dated 27.6.1992. It may be relevant to note here that order dated 27.6.1992, cancelling the allotment of the respondent-landlord was challenged by the respondent before the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the appeal filed before the Chief Settlement Commissioner is still pending.

The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent landlord had filed petition for ejectment of the plaintiff on 30.1.1984 for non-payment for rent from the year 1980 and the order of ejectment was passed by the revenue authority and even the appeal against the order of ejectment was dismissed upto financial Commissioner. He, however, submitted that against the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, the petitioner had filed a suit in the civil court and the principle of Res-judicata does not apply with regard to the title of the property even if the ejectment order has been passed by the Revenue Authority. He further submitted that during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the suit land was purchased by the petitioner-tenant, by an order of Tehsildar (Sales) Ambala dt. 7.1.1991. He, therefore, contended that the orders passed by the Courts below are not sustainable in law. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court in Subhash Chandra v. Mohammad Shariff 1991 CCC 5 and Richpal Singh and Ors. v. Dalip 1987 P.L.J. 572.

After hearing the learned counsel of the petitioner and having perused the impugned orders passed by the courts below, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the well reasoned orders passed by the Courts below. As stated in the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, the petitioner-plaintiff was inducted as a tenant by the respondent-landlord and the respondent-landlord had filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioner on account of non-payment of rent and the revenue authority passed the order of ejectment against the petitioner. The said order admittedly was upheld upto Financial Commissioner. In Para 6 of the said order, it has been stated that the petitioner-plaintiff had filed civil suit against the order passed by the revenue authorities and the said suit was finally dismissed by the Civil Court and the order of ejectment of the plaintiff was upheld. It has further been stated that appeal against the judgment of the Civil Court is pending. It is also clear from the impugned order that the petitioner-plaintiff had purchased the suit land by an order of Tehsildar (Sales) Ambala, dated 7.6.1991 but this order is subject to the approval of ASO (Sales) and admittedly the approval of ASO (Sales) has not yet been granted in favour of the petitioner. From these facts, it is clear that the points raised by the learned counsel of the petitioner will have to be gone into during the trial of the case and these can not be decided in the present proceeding which have arisen from the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. The reasons given by the learned Additional District Judge in para 6 to 8 of the impugned order as stated herein above are valid reasons and it cannot be said that these reasons are perverse. In view of this I do not find any merit in this petition.

As regards the case of Richpal Singh (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel of the petitioner, it is true that an order of ejectment passed by the revenue authority can be challenged before the Civil Court but as stated herein above, the civil suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff has already been dismissed and now only the appeal is pending. As regards the case of Subhash Chandra (supra) again it was held by the Supreme Court that there is no estoppel against the plea that subsequently the landlord has lost the title. Again this point whether the landlord infact has lost the title is yet to be decided as the appeal filed by the landlord against the order of cancellation is still pending before the Chief Settlement Commissioner.

In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.