INDER SEN ISRANI, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 23.3.1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Misc. Petition No. 54/87 confirming the order dated 17.3.87 passed by the Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur City, by which the application of the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. was dismissed.

2. The shop in dispute was mortgaged with the non-petitioners No. 6 and 7 for a sum of Rs. 6500/- for a period of 10 years by a registered mortgage deed dated 11.11.1968 and vacant possession of the same was handed over to the mortgagees. The mortgagees by virtue of powers vested in them according to the mortgage deed, gave the shop in dispute on rent to the present petitioner at the rent of Rs. 80/- p.m. The mortgagor filed a suit for redemption on 22.5.75 and a preliminary decree in his favour was passed on 11.7.79. On appeal, this preliminary decree was modified vide order dated 15.9.81 and final decree holding that the mortgagor was entitled to take actual possession of the shop in suit was passed on 29.6.82. On 3.8 82 suit for permanent injunction was filed by the present petitioner-tenant praying that he should not be dispossessed in this decree, which is passed in favour of the mortgager. The trial court allowed the application of the petitioner and issued a temporary injunction on 11.8.82 restraining the non-petitioners from dispossessing the petitioner. In appeal by the mortgagor the temporary injunction issued by the trial court was vacated on 18.11.1982. The tenant petitioner came in revision before this court and keeping in view the importance of the question of law involved in the petitioner, the learned single Judge referred the matter to the Full Bench of this Court. The full Bench after hearing both the parties on 28.8.84 held that the right of the petitioner as tenant ended with the rights of the mortgagors who inducted him as tenant in the dispu-ted shop. Thereafter, the Full Bench sent the revision petition back to the learned single Judge for disposal in accordance with law. The petitioner filed a special leave petition in this court against the opinion of the Full Bench, which was rejected by this court with the remarks that the Full Bench of this court has only delivered an opinion on the question of law. Learned single Judge vide its order dated 15.10.1984 dismissed the revision petition and refused to issue the temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court against the said order of dismissing the revision petition and the Apex Court decided the same vide its order dated 17.2.87. The petitioner again filed an application under O. 39 R. 1 and 2 C.P.C. in the trial court praying that since the Apex Court vide its order dated 17.2.87 has directed that the trial court will frame the necessary issues on the question whether the alleged lease was an act of prudent management within the preview of Sec. 76 (a) of the Transfer of Property Act, there being a stipulation in the mortgage deed to permit the mortgagee in possession to lease out the mortgage property. It was further directed that the trial court shall afford the parties an opportunity of adducing their evidence on the questions. It was, therefore, urged by the petitioner in the trial court that in view of the above order of the Apex Court, a temporary injunction should be issued in favour of the petitioner restraining the non-petitioners from dispossessing him during the pendency of the suit. The trial court dismissed the application on the ground the the non-petitioners No. 1/1 to 1/7 have not been joined as party after the death of non-petitioner No. 1, therefore, no temporary injunction can be issued against them. It also remarked that the matter is res-judicata as the first similar application filed by the petitioner has been rejected and also the fact that this application for issue of temporary injunction

Click Here to Read the rest of this document