LUMBINI NAGAR COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

         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
  I
        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.

    than the nine allottees who are said to have parted with their right to          r
A
    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
  agreements to sell their properties, the same is subject matter of the
G
  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
               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.

7