RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Mohd. Arif Kkan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, for the petitioners and Sri Hari Om Singh, for contesting respondent -3.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the orders of Civil Judge (Senior Division) (respondent -2) dated 26.04.2014, granting ad -interim injunction, restraining the petitioners from interfering in possession of respondent -3 over the land in dispute during pendency of the suit and Additional District Judge (respondent -1) dated 30.05.2014, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners, filed from the aforesaid order. Ram Pal Verma (respondent -3) filed a suit (registered as O.S. No. 49 of 2014), for permanent injunction, restraining Sandeep and others (the petitioners) from interfering with his possession over plot 410, consisting one room with khaprail roof, situated in village Bairampur Barawan, pargana Akbarpur, district Ambedkar Nagar. It has been stated in the plaint that the land in dispute was holding of Sabhapati and Patandeen sons of Durbali. Sabhapati died issueless and was inherited by his brother Patandeen. Patandeen also died and was inherited by his son Ram Pal Verma, (the plaintiff), who was owner in possession of the land in dispute. Sabhapati and Patandeen sons of Durbali, through a registered agreement dated 05.09.2000 granted licence to Moti Ram Verma son of Ram Bachan Verma, Narendra Kumar Verma son of Hari Ram Verma, residents of village Bharthuwa Saraiya, pargana Akbarpur, district Ambedkar Nagar, for using a portion of plot 410, shown by letters A, B, C, D in the plaint map, for establishing brick kiln. After completion of 10 years, the term of the licence dated 05.09.2000, Narendra Kumar Verma and others, stopped works brick kiln, over the land in dispute and handed over possession of it to Patandeen. The defendants, who are very influential persons, having high political approach in the locality, threatened the plaintiff to take forcible possession over the land in dispute, 7 -8 days back and run brick kiln over it although the father of the plaintiff did not grant any licence to the defendants nor entered into any agreement with them, permitting to run brick kiln. In spite of the request of the plaintiff, for not giving illegal threats and not to try to take possession over the disputed land and run brick kiln, against his will, the defendants were not ready for any compromise outside the Court and they had finally refused for any compromise on 09.02.2014 as such the plaintiff was left with no alternative, except to file the suit. The plaintiff also filed an application for interim injunction along with the plaint, in which allegations made the plaint were repeated and he has stated that the plaintiff had prima facie case, balance of convenience was in his favour and in case, interim injunction is not granted, he would suffer grave and irreparable loss.
(3.) THE petitioners filed an objection dated 04.03.2014 to the application for interim injunction, stating therein that suit was filed on false allegations concealing material facts. The plaintiff has no concern with the land in dispute nor he or his father were ever in possession of it from last 14 -15 years. Plot 410 was recorded in the name of Sabhapati and Patandeen, who through a registered agreement dated 05.09.2000 gave it to Moti Ram Verma and Narendra Kumar Verma, for establishing brick kiln for a period of ten years. On the basis this agreement, brick kiln was established and functioned up to 30.08.2010, as admitted in the application for interim injunction. In this agreement, there is a clause for renewal of the lease after expiry of the period of ten years. Narendra Kumar Verma and others could not run brick kiln due to their economic problem as such with the consent of Patandeen, they sub -let the brick kiln to the defendants and took their expenses of establishing infrastructures of brick kiln, from the defendants. Thereafter, the defendants have constructed office building, store room and servant quarters over the land in dispute. They have also taken adjacent land for taking soil for manufacture of the bricks. The defendants have invested more than Rs. One crore in establishing brick kiln business. After completion of period of ten years of the previous lease, Patandeen entered into a fresh agreement with the defendants dated 01.09.2010 and let out it to them for a period of ten years and took an advance of Rs. one lakh from the defendants and fixed rent of Rs. 50,000/ - per year. Patandeen survived till 20.12.2013 and till then he continuously accepted rent of Rs. 50,000/ - per year in advance and permitted the defendants to run his brick kiln business and rent up to 30.08.2014 was paid. The defendants were continuously paying all the taxes, royalty and licence fee of brick kiln. In November 2010, the plaintiff in collusion of his father created hindrance in brick kiln business of the defendants. The defendants then filed O.S. No. 255 of 2010 for permanent injunction against the plaintiff and his father. After filing of the suit, the plaintiff and his father realized their guilt and assured the defendants that they would not create any hindrance. On their assurance and subsequent conduct, the defendants left attending aforesaid suit. Now after death of Patandeen, the plaintiff began to demand Rs. two lakhs more, which was refused by the defendants. Then this suit was filed on false allegations and concealment of material facts relating to establishment of brick kiln and other infrastructures of the defendants over the land in dispute, which is proved from various documentary evidence.;