9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (12) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies. Under the compromise the tenant agreed to vacate the accommodation by February 1, 1971. 3. On March 16, 1972 a, suit was filed by the tenant for a declaration that the order dated July 29, 1970 was a nullity and he was not obliged to leave the premises. He also applied for an interim injunction. The learned Subordinate Judge granted an injunction on May 20, 1972 restraining the landlord from enforcing the order of the Controller during the pendency of the suit. The landlord filed an appeal, and on November 28, 1972 the learned District Judge made an order vacating the injunction. Thereafter, the tenant applied in revision to this Court against the order of the learned District Judge. This Court held that the order of the Controller ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dge related to the question whether the order of the Controller was a nullity and therefore whether the suit was not barred by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. A perusal of the order of the learned District Judge does not show that the landlord questioned the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge in relation to the balance of convenience between the parties or made any attempt to have the point determined whether the tenant would suffer irreparable loss if an injunction was not granted. When the revision was heard by this Court, again the point in controversy between the parties remained whether the order of the Controller was a nullity. No attempt was made by the landlord to show that even if the order could be described as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the plaintiff is not without merit. It is an opinion rendered on the state of the evidence then existing on the record, and it is open to the trial Court to take a different view when all the evidence has been let in and the suit itself has to be decided. In some cases, a pure question of law alone may arise in the suit. In such a case when the Court expresses an opinion on the question in order to determine in an injunction application whether a prima facie case exists, an impression can conceivably be gathered that the suit itself has been disposed of. But when the matter is considered in deeper perspective, it will be evident that the impression is a false one. The finding is limited to the context in which it has been given. It is a fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvations in mind, we are of opinion that anything said in our order dated June 19, 1974 allowing the revision petition cannot in law be treated as deciding any issue in the suit itself, and therefore the contention raised on behalf of the landlord must be rejected. 8. It is then urged by learned counsel for the landlord that when this Court found that a prima facie case existed, it should have gone on to decide whether the other two ingredients necessary for the grant of an injunction, that is to say, the balance of convenience between the parties and irreparable loss to the plaintiff, existed in the present case. Now, as has already been mentioned, the learned Subordinate Judge granted an injunction after considering the several ingredi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
