( 1 ) THE question for decision in this revision is : Whether the suit for permanent injunction is maintainable. Briefly the facts are that Johri Mal Sharma, Plaintiff, filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from terminating his services and dispossessing him from the suit premises, alleging that he was appointed as Head Priest on 1. 2. 78 on a monthly salary ofrs. 200- besides lodging and boarding by Mahavirji Trust, defendant No. 5-respondent No. 2, that he was performing his job to its satisfaction, that defendant No. 5 was the appointing authority, and Sanatan Dharam Sabba, Greater Kailash I, (defendant No. 1) its President, Secretary and Member defendants 2, 3 and 4 respectively with a view to appoint some one else as Head Priest were bent upon to level, false, baseless and defamatory allegtions and dispense his services, that defendant No. 1 was formed for constructing and completing the temple, that defendants 1 to 4 have no authority to terminate bis services nor have they any power to dispossess from the accommodation provided to him as residence. Defendants No. 1 to 4 pleaded that the plaintiff had not been performing Puja or performi