Rajendra Nath Mlttal, J.
1. The plaintiff has filed this revision petition against the order of the District Judge, Karnal, D/- 9th Feb., 1982.
2. Briefly, the case of the plaintiff is that he was in possession of the land as tenant under the Smadh Baba Bhagwan Gir Sahib on payment of Rs. 2325/- us yearly rent. The defendant wanted to forcibly dispossess the petitioner from it, Consequently, he filed a suit for permanent injunction that the defendant be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession With land or suctioning it to any other person. In the suit, an application for ad interim injunction restraining the defendant to take possession of the land during the pendency of the suit was also filed by him, The defendant contested the application and pleaded that It was in possession of the land and had been leasing out the same to different persons. It also pleaded that the plaintiff had concealed the true facts and, therefore, he was not entitled to ad interim injunction.
3. The trial Court held that the plaintiff was in possession in the land but dismissed the application regarding ad interim injunction on the ground that he concealed material facts. On appeal by the plaintiff, the District Judge affirmed the order of the trial Court, He has come up in revision against the said order to this Court.
4. It is contended by Mr. Goyal that it has been held by' the Courts below that the plaintiff was in possession the property since long and after coming to that conclusion it should not have refused the application or ad interim injunction. According to him, even a trespasser cannot be evicted except to due course of law. He made a reference to Mohan La1 v. State of Punjab, 1971 Pun LJ 338 (SC) Kanhiya v. Gram Panchayat, Jorasi Kalan, 1981 Pun L,T 252 and Roop Chand v, Joginder Singh, IAS, Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, 1974 Cur LJ 63g (Punj and Har).
5. I have duly considered the argument. If is well settled that the granting of ad interim injunction is purely within the discretion of the Court but the discretion has to be exercised in accordance with the sound judicial principles, The principles which govern the exercise of the discretion are that the party claiming ad interim injunction should establish. that it has a prima facie case, that if it is not granted it is likely to suffer a greater mischief and that interference by the Court is necessary to protect it from an irreparable injury.. When relief of injunction is claimed against forcible dispossession from immovable property, the established principle Of law is that the petty in possession for a sufficient long time is entitled to retain it unless dispose. and in due course of law. I em fortified in the above view by that observations of the Supreme Court in Mohan Lal's case (supra) wherein it was held that under our jurisprudence even an unauthorised occupant can be evicted only in the manner authorised by law, It is relevant to point out that in that ease the appellants remained in possession for a period of five years before they were thought to be dispossessed. The above case was followed by a learned single Judge in Kanhiya's case (1981 Pun W 252) (supra). It was observed then that non-granting of the temporary injunction to a person in possession would indicate a licence to another person claiming himself to be the owner to resort to force or unlawful means to dispossess him from the property. In that case also, the plaintiff, who had been granted injunction by this Court had been in possession of the property !or morn then one year prior to the filing of the suit. Similar view was taken in Roop Chand's case (1974 Cur I.t 639) (supra). The learned Judge held that even if it was accepted for the sake of argument that the petitioner was in unauthorised possession of the house, then also he could not be thrown out otherwise than in due course of taw. He was entitled to retain the possession subject to any decision given by the Court of law.
6. Now, I deal with the cases referred to by Mr, Cheema. In M. Kallappa Shetty v. M. V. Lakshminarayana Rao, AIR 1972 SC 2299 the plaintiff had filed suit claimant two reliefs, firstly, of declaration that he was the owner of the property in dispute and secondly, of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from unlawfully end forcibly taking possession thereof from him The Supreme Court, while deciding the ease, left the first question open to be decided in a subsequent suit for possession to be filed by the defendant his representative on the basis of title. However, it granted to the plaintiff on an injunction observing that once it was accepted that he was in possession of the property ever since 1947, then his possession had to be protected as against interference by some one who was not proved to have a better title than him. It is thus evident that possession of the plaintiff was protected in that case too. In Sham Singh v. Prem Chand, 1979 Pun LJ 537, the learned Judge made observation by way of obiter dicta that even if the plaintiff was able to show that he was in possession of the land, no ad interim injunction could be granted to him as the defendants had better title than him. While making the observations. reliance was placed on M. Kallappa Setty's case (AIR 1972 SC 2299} (supra). With great respect to the learned Judge, I am of the view that the opinion expressed in the case is not warranted by M. Kallappa Setty's case (supra). Consequently, I overrule Sham Singh's case (supra) to this extent. In the present case, the petitioner has shown beyond any shadow of doubt that he was in possession of the land for a long time and, entitled to ad interim injunction.
7. The next contention of Ms. Goyal is that there was no suppression of any fact, much less of a material fact, by the petitioner and that no prejudice has been caused to the respondent by the alleged suppression and, there note, the relief of ad interim injunction should not have been refused.
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contention of the learned counsel and find substance in it. The petitioner claims himself to be a tenant under Smadh Baba Bhagwan Gir Saheb, the alleged owner of the land, whereas the respondent claims itself to be the owner and landlord of the petitioner. The matter is to be decided by the Court asks recording, evidence. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was a tenant under the respondent. It relied upon a resolution the respondent which allegedly bears the signatures of the petitioner. However, thc petitioner denied that he signed any resolution. In the Samabandi, Smadh Baba Bhagwan Gir is shown to be the owner of the land. These facts have not been taken into consideration by the courts below. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner suppressed any material fact. The leaned counsel for the respondent has also not been able to allow he respondent has been prejudiced in the way: Therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied the relief on this ground.
9. Vellakutty v. Karthyayani, AIR 1968 Ker 179 end Regional Transport Officer, Kozhikode v. N. 'V. Motor Service, Kozhikode, AIR 1973 Ker 21. reliance on which has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent, are distinguishable. In Vallakutty's case (supra), the High Court found that certain materiel facts regarding possession had been concealed, Consequently, it was held that, the party suppressing material facts from the Courts does not deserve the grant of any discretionary relief, much less a temporary injunction, to the oppression of the others during the pendency of the suit. In Regional Transport Officer's case (supra), an ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs against the Regional Transport Officer staying the collection of tax. In the application, it was not disclosed by the plaintiffs that 'the amount of tax was assessed on the basis of the composition application filed by them. &sides;, this fact some other facts went' also concealed by them, In view of the said circumstances, the learned Judges held that the order granting ad interim injunction was perverse, It was further held that if a party came to a Court with a very material averment which turned out to be false, the Court would be slow in the exercise of its powers to grant injunction in his favour. The observations are to be read in the facts and circumstances of` the case, Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent cannot take any benefit from the observations in the above cases.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, I accept the revision petition, set aside the orders of the Courts below and grant ad interim injunction that the petitioner should not be dispossessed from the property till thc decision of the suit. No order as to costs.
S.P. Goyal, J.
11. I agree.
12. Revision allowed.