#TBE {{BLURR}} assert his titletto disputed premises and he iairalloWed 4.07.7temain posses- sion thereof durihgcPendency of suit, landlorci will have !o wait ,for, several r.Years more to reap fruits . . .Tturralo 41.13(101,11,..., bib clgoodi fiout"Syed Lap. 11,01ffer Za for Petitioner. 420;70 1.11 1.0 lcAxiu 1Liawiq aii oi. ,-;6b) kxf Soo bh.i(-: c.c. ?i;The facts,siv risie, to this civil revision are thatrespondent Abdul Majid file .Frim,,applieation against the Petitioner, Abdul Shakotir, and respo eptik pos. 1 tot A, ,HajtSnaukat and 2 others, for their eviction (..f r per* premises wini; alleged by respondent No 4 Oat the dispute t *prima nme part of house No 437 ',Which was trans- ferred toh aa...Anevaquee property under the Displaced Per ens (Cot- 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 provisions of section 30 of the said Act: The petitioner and respondents Nos.
1 to 3 denied existence of relationshi0 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 Ad.. Noor Muhammad has since died and the petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are his successors-ininterest. A Rent Controller of Jhang, who heard the ejectment matter, accepted the plea raised by the petitioner and reipondents 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 Copttoller and after' hOlclitirtfiliCi4e disputed premises were part of house 14A.437'iaised an Ail& of evictioillgainst the petitioner and respondents Nos:- Vio 3. There After the petitioner filed a civil suit against the respondents'claiming didaration 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. Fat' temporary injunction to the above effect The-temporarY:injunction wasf:refused by the Civil Judge who. WAti 'seized of the suit The appeal taken by .Him. 'before adAdditional DistrietiJudge has also failed. Hence.This revision petition. t;L:11:;;
2. It was contended by learnedreblinteUfoirthe'Petither that. The',petitionet was entitled to the-grant of interim relief because the question of 'title is h to be ultimately decided: the-Civil Court. I agree withthe learned counsel l'.That the concurrent finding recorded yin- the ejectment matter that respondent )'''No, 4 is transferee of the disputed. Premises is subject to -the verdict of the Civil butAbistconsideration alone does not warrant the grant of interim A t' relief to the petitioner: .In order-to secure that: relief he had to satisfy th IP learned trialCourt that hehada prima facie case.. In view, of the concurrent finding ofthe learned'Itent Controller and thO' learned District 'Judge that {{BLURR}} the petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were statutory tenants of respondent 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 failed 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 finalised. If after his success in the eject men 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.