The Patna Amendment to Order 39, Rule 1, CPC, does not affect the inherent powers of the court under Section 151, CPC, to grant temporary injunctions in appropriate cases.

JUDGMENT :

A. Misra, A.C.J.

1. Plaintiff is the Petitioner. This revision is directed, against an order rejecting an application u/s 151, CPC for issuing an injunction restraining the Defendant from proceeding with Ex. Case No. 28 of 1971 on the file of the Munsif, Puri.

2. The facts giving rise to this revision are as follows : Opp. party who is the landlord filed Misc. Case No. 7 of 1968 against the Petitioner, his tenant, under the provisions of the House Rent Control Act for eviction on the ground that the latter defaulted in payment of rent. The Misc. Case was allowed and eviction was ordered. Against this order, the Petitioner filed Rent Control Appeal No. 9 of 1970 which was dismissed, and thereafter, he filed a writ which was registered as O.J.C. No. 314 of 1971 and ultimately withdrawn. Thereafter, the landlord, opp. party levied execution of the House Rent Control order in Ex. Case No. 28 of 1971. In the said execution case, opposite party raised an objection u/s 47, Civil Procedure Code, challenging the order of the House Rent Controller as one passed without jurisdiction which was registered as Miso. Case No. 182 of 1971. The said Misc. Case was dismissed and against the order he preferred an appeal which was registered as Misc. A. No. 50 of 1971 with no better result. Thereafter, he filed O.S. No. 69 of 1971. In that suit, he alleged that the order of the House Rent Controller was not and void on the ground that the said order was passed without jurisdiction and also claimed a permanent tenancy in respect of the disputed house. During the pendency of this suit, he filed an application u/s 151, CPC for a temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit which was rejected. The said order is under challenge in the present revision.

3. The following points have been urged by learned Course) for Petitioner : (1) The Patna Amendment to Order 39, Rule 1, Civil, Procedure Code fetters the jurisdiction of the Court in granting a temporary injunction in contravention of Section 56 of the old Specific Relief Act corresponding to Section 41 of the new Act. This amendment, however, does not affect the inherent powers of the Court u/s 151, CPC to grant a temporary injunction in appropriate oases and (2) the Petitioner has a strong prima facie case, particularly when he claims a permanent tenancy under a compromise entered into a previous proceeding, and further from paragraph 6 of the impugned order, it is clear that there was no default in payment of rent which would give jurisdiction to the House Rent Controller to pass an order for eviction under the said Act.

4. So far as the first contention is concerned, reliance is placed on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Manohar Lal Chopra Vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal. In that case, it was held that in circumstances not covered by Order 39, CPC or by any rules made under the Code, the Court has inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary injunction, if the Court is of opinion that the interest of justice requires the issue of such temporary injunction. In the present case, it is stated by learned Counsel for Petitioner that he does not seek for a temporary injunction grounds or circumstances mentioned in Order 39, Civil Procedure Code. The Patna Amendment to Order 39 Rule 1, CPC also refers to 'such temporary injunction' which necessarily means temporary injunction sought in circumstances contemplated in Order 39, Civil Procedure Code. The application here is for grant of a temporary injunction under the Court's inherent powers as the circumstances mentioned do not come within the purview of Order 39, Civil Procedure Code. In my opinion, there is some force in this contention.

5. The Patna amendment to Order 39 Rule 1, CPC seems to fetter the discretion of the Court only in respect of injunctions prayed for in circumstances contemplated in that provision. When the grounds mentioned in the present case are not covered by Order 39, CPC strictly speaking, there may be no bar