A.N.Varma, J. - (1.) Through the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the judgment and orders dated 29.9.2004 as well as 24.5.2001 passed by opposite parties No. 1 and 2, contained in Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition respectively. It has further been prayed that a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding opposite parties not to evict the petitioner from over the house in question.
(2.) The petitioner who was working as an Office Superintendent with the opposite parties attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.1996. By virtue of his employment he was allotted an accommodation by the opposite parties. Upon his retirement the petitioner was required and was asked to vacate the premises in question, which he, however, did not vacate and instituted a suit being Regular Suit No. 138 of 2001 against the opposite parties praying for a decree that he be not evicted otherwise than in due course of law. An application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. was also preferred for grant of an ad-interim injunction praying therein that the opposite parties be restrained from evicting the petitioner otherwise than in due course of law. The trial court vide judgment and order dated 24.5.2001 rejected the petitioner's application for grant of ad-interim injunction on the ground that since he had retired with effect from 31.10.1996, therefore, he had no right to stay in the accommodation allotted to him by virtue of his appointment. This finding was arrived at on the ground that the petitioner had no prima facie case, nor was there any balance of convenience in his favour. Being aggrieved against the said judgment and order, the petitioner filed an appeal being Misc. Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2001. The opposite party No. 1 vide its judgment and order dated 29.9.2004 (Annexure-1) dismissed the appeal and maintained the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court (Annexure-2).
(3.) I have heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned standing counsel.;