- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the plaintiff appellants.
(2.) BY this Misc. Appeal under Order 43 rule 1 C.P.C. the plaintiff-appellants have challenged the order dated 11th April, 2012 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-appellants under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. in Civil Suit No. 59/2007 for grant of temporary injunction against the defendant-respondent restraining him from evicting them from the premises in dispute without following the due process of law, has been rejected. The case of the plaintiffs in the civil suit as well as in the application for temporary injunction is that they are the tenants of the defendant respondent of the premises which was earlier occupied by their mother as tenant. Subsequently, on construction of residential house by their father they were inducted as tenants on 1st April, 2002 and since then they are depositing rent in the bank account of the respondent. Presently they are running business in the name and style 'True Gems Source'. It is also stated in the plaint as well as in the application for temporary injunction that as they were having no premises to run their business, they requested the respondent to take the premises on rent @ Rs.1000/- per month but the respondent landlord agreed for the rent @ Rs.200/- per month and demanded 'pagri' of Rs.1,00,000/-. They agreed with the terms and conditions of the respondent landlord and in the end of March,2002 deposited Rs.1,00,000/ and started to pay monthly rent @ Rs.200/- with effect from 1st April, 2002 and continued to deposit the same up to May, 2007 by cheque in the Bank Account (No.17283) of the respondent. However, on 13th May,2007 the respondent met them and told them either to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month or to vacate the premises. It was also averred in the plaint that the defendant neither can increase rent as per his own wishes nor evict them from the disputed premises without following the due process of law. Thus, it was prayed in the suit for permanent injunction as well as in the T.I. application that the defendant be restrained by way of injunction from evicting the plaintiffs without following the due process of law and from interfering in their business.
(3.) THE defendant respondent has filed reply to the application for temporary injunction mentioning therein that there is no tenancy between the plaintiffs and the defendant and that the same premises was occupied by their mother along with them for residential purposes and when their father tenant Pukhraj Lodha (original tenant) constructed his own house and failed to make payment of rent in time, he filed civil suit for eviction and for arrears of rent which was prosecuted by Pukhraj Lodha, father of the plaintiffs. However, both the parties entered into compromise on 18th March, 2002 and the tenant (father of the plaintiff-appellants) obtained time up to 31st March, 2007 for vacating the premises, therefore, a compromised decree was passed against the original tenant Smt. Indra Devi Lodha. However, the premises was not vacated by her, proceedings for execution were initiated by him against the mother of the plaintiffs and the same is pending.;