- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(3.) The appellant's case is, he is a tenant and has been paying rent to the landlord. He has filed the suit for permanent injunction against respondent which is still pending in the trial Court. The short point for consideration is, whether in view of proceedings under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, whether the Court was right to refuse the injunction to the appellant not to evict in a pending suit. The grievance of the appellant is, though the suit is still pending, their refusal consequentially confers right on the respondent to evict the appellant, which the respondent has no jurisdiction while exercising powers under Section 29. The only right claimed by the respondent is under Section 29 of the said Act. The respondent's case is, under this section he has power to recover dues including by selling the property but in view of this proceedings, it is not able to sell this property. Learned Counsel for respondent relies on U. P. Financial Corporation v. GEM Capo (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others, JT 1993 (2) SC 226 : 1993 (2) SCC 299, wherein this Court held that in proceedings under Section 29, the Court should not interfere. This decision has no relevance or applicability to the controversy raised in the present case.;