N.P.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE matter comes up for consideration of stay application. However, with the consent of the parties, the matter has been finally heard. The record of she courts below was summoned but the record of the Appellate Court has only been received while that of trial court has not been received. In my view for the disposal of the revision the record of the trial court need not be awaited.
(2.) BY the impugned order the learned lower Appellate Court has set aside, the order of the learned trial court dismissing the plaintiffs application for injunction and has granted interim injunction to the effect that pending disposal of the suit, the defendants No. 1 to 3 shall not forcibly dispossess the plaintiff and shall maintain status quo of the suit property. The case of the plaintiff is that he is a tenant on the suit premises and has been regularly paying rent from time to time, he was served with a notice by the defendant No.3 on 19.6.1984 calling him upon to leave possession, which was duly replied on 22.6.1984, thereafter on 23.9.1984 yet another notice was issued to the petitioner, then on 15.1.1985 still another notice was sent to the plaintiff by defendant No.2 fixing 18.1.1985 for fixing the terms of the plaintiffs possession, then on 19.10.1986 another notice was given to the plaintiff to the effect that the plaintiff should deposit a sum of Rs. 2718/ - by way of rent within three days otherwise he shall be evicted. According to the plaintiff, even before receipt of this notice the plaintiff had deposited Rs. 2000/ - with the defendant No.3, then had also deposited rent in the year 1987 and onwards. With these allegations it was alleged that subsequently the rent was declined to be received and the defendant No.2, in the file opened in the year 1984 about plaintiffs unauthorised possession in the year 1986 passed an order of dispossession which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. On these premises, the suit was filed for declaration of the 1986 order to be void and ineffective and for injunction seeking u
(3.) THE main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner before me is that in view of the provisions of Section 10 and Section 10A of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupations) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred, and therefore, the learned court below has no jurisdiction to grant any injunction.;