Even unauthorised occupants are entitled to the protection of the law to the extent that they cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law.

( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of six civil revisions (Civil Revisions Nos. 74 to 79 D of 1966) which can be coveniently disposed of together. The revisions are directed aga. inst the common appellate order of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, dated 31st January, 1963 by which the learned Judge reversed the order of the trial Court dated 16th July, 1965 and finally rejected the application of the plaintiffs in the suit for grant of temporary injunction. However, on admission of the revision, stay of eviction was granted by this court on 8th February, 1966.

( 2 ) THE material facts of the case giving rise to the dispute briefly stated are that firstly one suit was instituted by seven plaintiffs but later on the suit was split up in several suits and the original suit was continued by Om Parkash and other suits which have given rise to the revisions were instituted by Baldev Raj, Hardev Singh, Amrit Lal, Safari Lal Gurbachan Singh and Darga Parshad, respectively petitioners in Civil Revision, Nos. 74-D of 1986, 75-D of 1966 76 D of 1966, 77-D of 1966, 78-D of 1966 and 79-D of 1966. The suits were for the relief that a permanent injunction be issued restraining the defendants, namely, Delhi Development, Authority, Estate Officer and the Delhi Municipal Corporation from either evicting the plaintiffs or demolishing the premises without observing the procedure prescribed by law, in particular the procedure prescribed by the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958. The material allegations made in the plaint were that there was a large piece of land known as old Qabristan Gurdwara Road Delhi and that on various pieces of the said land the plaintiffs set up small trades and business of various types on different dates from 1949 to 1959 and that at different times the plaintiffs had received notices from the Estate Officer and the Delhi Development Authority under section 7 (2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 calling upon them to pay damages and that the plaintiffs had taken up the objection that the piece of lane in their possession was not public premises within the meaning of Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 and that the Estate Officer had not decided the objections of the plaintiffs that the defendents had no authority under the law to interfere with occupation and possession of the plaintiffs and tha the plaintiffs could not be dispossessed except under the authority of law. The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants were threatening and attempting to carry out evictions of the plaintiffs from the said land illegally, without jurisdiction and with show of force and so the defendants he restrained from dispossessing them without recourse to the procedure prescribed by law.

( 3 ) THE suit was contested on behalf of the defemdamt in which they took the plea, inter alia that the land in suit was Nazul land and the Union of India was a necessary party and that the plaintiffs had no cause of action, that the orders of the Estate Officer were final and they further stated that the land in dispute was named as Qbristan;. :. Gurdwara Road, but it was not a Muslim graveyard and it was not a Wakf but was a public premises as defined in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 and the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred by section 10 of the aforesaid Act. The Municipal Corporation also filed a reply in which they dicided the material allegations of the plaintiffs and raised certain other pleas with which we are at present not concerned.

( 4 ) THE trial Court passed on order granting ad interim injunction as prayed for in the plaint after holding that the plaintiffs had a prima facie case. On appeal, the learned Senior Subordinate judge came to a different conclusion and held that the plaintiffs did not have prima facie case or title or interest in the property in dispute and he allowed the appeal