...,.
I
LUMBINI NAGAR COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS.
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
AUGUST 17, 1995
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
B
Constitution of India :
Article 136-Scope of-Injunction refused by Single Judge as also by
Division Bench of High Court-Held : injunction is a discretionary C
order-High Court having refused to exercise discretion, it would not be
expedient to interfere with order of High Court.
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971:
Ss.4, 5-Public premises-Residential tenaments-Some allottees al- D
leged to have alienated the premises-Eviction proceedings-Held; no action
to be taken against any person other than the allottees said to have parted
with their right to remain in possession of their respective tenaments.
The respondents initiated proceedings under the Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 against nine allottees out E
of 169 original allottees of the tenaments in ·question. These nine allottees
were said to have parted with their right to remain in possession of their
respective tenaments. Some of these allottees filed a suit for specific
performance of contract before the High Court, and prayed for ad interim
injunction. The High Court refused the injunction. The appeal was also F
dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Aggrieved, the Society
and some of the allottees filed the appeal by special leave.
Disposing of the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. Injunction is a discretionary order. The Single Judge as G
also the Division Bench of the High Court have refused to exercise the
·discretion in favour of the nine allottees. Under the circumstances, it would
not be expedient under Article 136 of the Constitution to upset the order
of the High Court. (817-A]
2. The respondents would not take action against any person other H
8~
'
816
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 2 s.c;.R.
A
than the nine allottees who are said to have parted with their right to
r
remain in possession of their respective tenaments. [816-F-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7896 of
1995.
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10:89 of the Bombay High
Court in 1135 of 1989.
B.A. Desai, Ms. Reema Bhandari and M.N. Shroff for the Appellants.
.,..
AS. Nambiar, AS. Rawat, D.S. Mehra, Ms. Sushma Suri and Ms.
c Binu Tamta for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
D
Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on July 28, 1995 and
the order dated August 11, 1995, affidavit has been filed in which it has
categorically been stated that out of 169 original allottees, 57 are employees
of respondent No. 2 and are described as departmental employees. Out of
112 other allottees, 9 allottees were given notice under the Public Premises
E
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Remaining 103 persons
are the original allottees who are still in occupation of their respective
tenaments with their families. They neither sold nor transferred their
tenaments and they are continuing to reside in the respective tenaments
even till date.
F
Mr. Nambiar, learned senior counsel for the respondents, has stated
across the bar that no action is being taken against any person other than
the nine allottees who are said to have parted with their right to remain in
possession of their respective tenaments. The learned counsel for the
appellants contended that these 9 allottees, though have entered into
G agreements to sell their properties, the same is subject matter of the
pending suit in the High Court. Therefore, their possession cannot be
disturbed.
Since the High Court, both the Learned Judge as well as the Division
....
I
Bench, was not inclined to grant injunct~on as sought for, we are not
H persuaded to take a different view in that behalf. Injunction being a
7
LUMBINI NGR. COOP. HSG. SOCY. LTD. v. U.0.1.
817
discretionary order, the High Court has refused to exercise the discretion A
in favour of the nine persons. Under these circumstances, we do not deem
it expedient under Article 136 to upset the order of the High Court.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
R.P.
Appeal disposed of.
Lex