- (1.) Heard Sri. R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the prospective allottee. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.04.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Banda in Original Suit No. 323 of 2013, Uma Dutt Chaturvedi v. Hindu Inter College, Atarra rejecting the application for interim relief.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were Teachers in the Hindu Inter College, Atarra. Now they are retired. Since the appellants were in employment as Teachers, they have been provided accommodation by the college. After their retirement, they continued to be in possession of such premises. The respondents issued notices to the appellants to vacate the premises. The appellants filed the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from evicting the appellants from the premises in dispute. The case set up by the appellants in the suit was that they have constructed the house from their own resources over the land in dispute and as such they are the owners of the property in dispute. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that the appellants could not furnish any documents in support of their claim that they have raised the construction from their own resources. Paper No. 18-G was filed, which is the copy of resolution, shows that the land was taken from the Government for the construction of the houses. Paper No. 21-G, the copy of khatauni shows that the land in dispute belonged to the respondent, paper No. 25-G, the copy of the khasra is on record. The respondent filed paper Nos. 27-G, 28-G and 29-G, the copies of the rent register. The copy of the mortgage deed dated 15.03.1966, executed between Hindu Inter College, Atarra and Government, was also filed, whereby a loan of Rs. 58,800/- was taken for the construction of 26 quarters. The court below has refused to grant the interim relief on the ground that the plaintiffs have not come with clean hands and wrongly stated before the Court that the houses were constructed from their own resources. The plaintiffs are not able to make out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is not in their favour.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in fact the construction of the houses were made by the appellants out of their own resources and they are occupying the premises since last several years and, therefore, they have a right to occupy the premises in dispute. He submitted that the suit for permanent injunction is pending before the court below and in case, if the interim relief is denied, the appellants shall suffer irreparable loss. He submitted that in such a situation, Apex Court in the case of Pabbathi Venkataramaiah Chetty v. Pabbathi N. Rathnamaiah Chetty and others, 2007 3 SCC 151 has held that stay of dispossession from the premises should not be granted. He relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Jatia v. S.R.G.P. Industries Ltd., 2004 AIR(SC) 4609;