A tenant who has not paid rent/batai for a period of over 7 years and has not taken any step for payment of rent even from the date of suit till the date of the order is not entitled to an ad interim injunction restraining the landlord from dispossessing him.

G.C.Garg, J.

1. Defendant-respondents are admittedly the landowners. Plaintiff-petitioner claims to be tenant on the land in dispute measuring 40 kanals 3 marlas on payment of 1/3rd batai. He claims tenancy from the year 1982 onwards.

2. Apprehending his dispossession, he filed a suit in August, 1991 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff except in due course of law. Plaintiff also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking ad interim injunction. Learned trial Court on a consideration of the matter by order dated May 7, 1994 came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has no prima facie case and the balance of convenience is also not in his favour and that irreparable loss would be caused to the defendants in case the stay application is allowed. He consequently dismissed the application.

3. Plaintiff aggrieved by the order of the trial Court filed an appeal. Learned District Judge by the detailed order agreed with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and consequently dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision at the instance of the plaintiff.

4. Notice of motion was issued in the revision petition for September 28, 1994 and meanwhile status quo regarding possession was ordered to be maintained. The revision petition was ultimately admitted on November 30, 1994. The order of status quo was modified and the orders passed by the Courts below were stayed meanwhile.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that plaintiff is continuing in possession of the suit land on payment of 1/3rd batai for the last about 15 years and thus Courts below have acted illegally and with material irregularity in dismissing the application for ad interim relief.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner was specifically put a question as to whether petitioner has paid the rent/batai to the landowners for the period from 1982 to 1997 or not. Counsel submitted that he has no instructions in that behalf and replied that even if it be taken that rent/batai has not been paid, petitioner is entitled to the injunction as he is in possession of the land in dispute.

7. On a careful consideration of the matter and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am unable to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not shown by reference to the material on record that the rent/batai already stands paid either under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act by moving an appropriate application there-under or against receipt to the landowners. Plaintiff only wants to remain in possession without payment of any rent. As per his own case, he is liable to pay rent which he has not paid. Moreover, the two Courts below on appreciation of the material placed on record have recorded a concurrent finding that plain tiff has no prima facie case in his favour and balance of convenience is also not in his favour. No material has been brought to my notice which may show that the orders are vitiated and are liable to be set aside in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Even in equity, petitioner is not entitled to remain in possession of the land because of the fact that he has not taken any step for payment of rent even from the date of suit till today. I, thus, see no ground to interfere. The revision petition is, consequently, dismissed.

8. However, if petitioner pays rent/mesne profits, against receipt or deposits in Court, at the rate of Rs.8000/- per acre per year in respect of the disputed land within a period of 15 days from today for the crop year 1991-92 upto the crop year 1997-98, he shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute till the final disposal of the suit. In case the amount is not paid/deposited, petitioner shall not be entitled to the protection of the possession over the land in dispute.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage pointed out that as per the defence taken in the written statem