JUDGMENT 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. 58/2007 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. 3. 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 father 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. 300/- 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. 300/- 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. 4. 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. 4. 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 father along with them for residential purposes and when the origional tenant Pukhraj Lodha 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. However, the premises was not vacated by the father of the plaintiffs, proceedings for execution were initiated by him against the father of the plaintiffs and the same is pending. 5. The trial court after consideration of the facts of the case gave a prima facie finding that there is no document on record to prove the fact of tenancy in favour of the plaintiff appellants regarding the premises in question. On consideration of the judgments of this Court reported in (1) 1988 (2) RLR page 871 and (2) 2002(2) WLC 362 made prima facie observation that the plaintiffs can raise their objections in the execution proceedings filed by the defendant respondent against their father. The trial court after considering the material on record has recorded finding that neither the prima facie case regarding relationship of landlord and tenant has been proved by the plaintiffs nor the balance of convenience nor irreparable loss was proved and as such, temporary injunction cannot be granted in their favour. 6. The submission of Mr. Mahendra Goyal, learned counsel for the plaintiff appellants is that they are regularly depositing rent in the bank account of the defendant respondent which has not been disputed by him. Therefore, the relationship of tenant and landlord is established between the appellants and the respondent and further that the trial court has committed error in not considering the affidavits filed on behalf of the plaintiff-appellants. 7. Therefore, the relationship of tenant and landlord is established between the appellants and the respondent and further that the trial court has committed error in not considering the affidavits filed on behalf of the plaintiff-appellants. 7. I have gone through the record of the appeal and further considered the submissions of the counsel for the plaintiff appellants. 8. In my view, simply deposit of the rent in the bank account of the defendant respondent which was made known to the father of the present plaintiff appellants and further without any consent of the present defendant respondent will not create prima facie tenancy between the parties, therefore, the trial court has rightly prima facie held that there is no proof of tenancy and in case the plaintiffs have any grievance then they can raise objections in the execution proceedings going on in respect of the earlier tenancy between their father and the landlord defendant respondent with regard to the compromised decree. There is no force in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. 9. Any observation made hereinabove, shall not affect the decision on merits of the civil suit. 10. Consequently, the Misc. Appeal is, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******