JUDGMENT : Rajes Kumar and Om Prakash-VII, JJ. Heard Sri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the prospective allottee. 2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.04.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Banda in Original Suit No. 323 of 2013, Uma Dutt Chaturvedi v. Hindu Inter College, Atarra rejecting the application for interim relief. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were Teachers in the Hindu Inter College, Atarra. Now they are retired. Since the appellants were in employment as Teachers, they have been provided accommodation by the college. After their retirement, they continued to be in possession of such premises. The respondents issued notices to the appellants to vacate the premises. The appellants filed the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from evicting the appellants from the premises in dispute. The case set up by the appellants in the suit was that they have constructed the house from their own resources over the land in dispute and as such they are the owners of the property in dispute. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that the appellants could not furnish any documents in support of their claim that they have raised the construction from their own resources. Paper No.18-G was filed, which is the copy of resolution, shows that the land was taken from the Government for the construction of the houses. Paper no.21-G, the copy of khatauni shows that the land in dispute belonged to the respondent, paper no.25-G, the copy of the khasra is on record. The respondent filed paper no.27-G, 28-G and 29-G, the copies of the rent register. The copy of the mortgage deed dated 15.03.1966, executed between Hindu Inter College, Atarra and Government, was also filed, whereby a loan of Rs.58,800/- was taken for the construction of 26 quarters. The court below has refused to grant the interim relief on the ground that the plaintiffs have not come with clean hands and wrongly stated before the Court that the houses were constructed from their own resources. The plaintiffs are not able to make out a prima-facie case and the balance of convenience is not in their favour. 4. The court below has refused to grant the interim relief on the ground that the plaintiffs have not come with clean hands and wrongly stated before the Court that the houses were constructed from their own resources. The plaintiffs are not able to make out a prima-facie case and the balance of convenience is not in their favour. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in fact the construction of the houses were made by the appellants out of their own resources and they are occupying the premises since last several years and, therefore, they have a right to occupy the premises in dispute. He submitted that the suit for permanent injunction is pending before the court below and in case, if the interim relief is denied, the appellants shall suffer irreparable loss He submitted that in such a situation, Apex Court in the case of Pabbathi Venkataramaiah Chetty v. Pabbathi N. Rathnamaiah Chetty and others, reported in (2007) 3 SCC 151 has held that stay of dispossession from the premises should not be granted. He relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Jatia v. S.R.G.P. Industries Ltd., 365 reported in 2005 (2) AWC 1457 , decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rame Gowda (D) by Lrs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs., reported in 2004 AIR (SC) 4609. 5. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the prospective allottee of the premises in dispute and the Teachers of the college submitted that the premises in dispute are owned by the college. Accommodation have been provided to the appellants when they were in employment and now they are retired and, therefore, they are under obligation to vacate the premises in dispute. Such houses have been allotted to them being Teachers of the college. When the possession of the premises in dispute has not been delivered, Ashok Kumar, prospective allottee, filed a writ and further Brij Mohan Singh, who was also a prospective allottee filed Writ Petition No.56238 of 2012 with the prayer asking the occupant to vacate the premises in dispute, which belonged to the Hindu Inter College, Atarra. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 16.07.2013 has directed the management to take appropriate action within three months. In the said judgment it has been noted that the premises in dispute belonged to Hindu Inter College, Atarra. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 16.07.2013 has directed the management to take appropriate action within three months. In the said judgment it has been noted that the premises in dispute belonged to Hindu Inter College, Atarra. In pursuance of the order of this Court, notices have been issued to the retired Teachers and number of retired Teachers vacated the premises but the appellants are illegally occupying the premises and are disputing their dispossession and filed the suit for permanent injunction. He submitted that the premises in dispute were allotted to the appellants during their service tenure and after the retirements, it is obligatory on their part to vacate the premises in dispute, but they are illegally occupying the premises in dispute. The appellants are not able to establish that they have constructed the house from their owner resources and they are the owner of the premises in dispute or in any way there is allotment of the property in their favour to continue and retain the premises. 6. We have considered the rivals submissions and perused the impugned order. 7. Apex Court in the case of Kashi Math Samasthan v. Srimad Sudhindra, reported in AIR 2010 (SC) 296 , has held that in order to obtain an order of injunction, the party has to prove that he has made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience in his favour and he will suffer irreparable loss or injury if the injunction is not granted. In the present case, the appellants are not able to make out a prima facie case in their favour. They failed to prove that the construction of the houses were made, out of their own resources and they are either owners of the house in dispute or allotment still exists in their favour. To the contrary the defendant/respondent was able to prove that the property in dispute belonged to the Hindu Inter College, Atarra. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.56238 of 2012 has observed that the premises in dispute belonged to Hindu Inter College, Atarra. A direction has also been issued for taking appropriate action for the eviction of those persons, who are illegally occupying the premises in dispute and in pursuance thereof, the notices have been issued to the appellants. 8. A direction has also been issued for taking appropriate action for the eviction of those persons, who are illegally occupying the premises in dispute and in pursuance thereof, the notices have been issued to the appellants. 8. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order, which requires interference by this Court. 9. In the case of Rame Gowda (D) by Lrs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs. (Supra), it was claimed by the parties that they are in rightful possession over the property in dispute and was able to make out a prima-facie case in their favour. In the circumstances, Apex Court has held that such persons can not be dispossessed forcefully except in accordance to law. We are of the view that such is not a situation in the present case. Therefore, aforesaid decision does not apply. In case of Pabbathi Venkataramaiah Chetty v. Pabbathi N. Rathnamaiah Chetty and others, (Supra), person was running a lodge in premises in dispute. The claim was that he has ? share in building and, therefore, he can not be kept out of possession. On the facts and circumstances of that case, the Apex Court has held that the interest of the said person is required to be protected during the pendency of the appeal. In the case of Shiv Kumar Jatia v. S.R.G.P. Industries Ltd., (Supra), the suit for eviction was filed. On the facts and circumstances, the Court observed that if the defendants are not restrained purpose of filing the suit for eviction shall be lost and irreparable loss will be suffered. 10. We are of the view that the aforesaid decisions does not apply. Each case depends on its own fact and there is no universal application of the decision. As stated above in the present case the appellants failed to establish the case set-up by them in the suit, namely, that they have constructed the house out of their own resources and such house belonged to them and as such, they are entitled to continue in possession. In the circumstances, the court below found that the appellants failed to prove prima-facie case in their favour and there is no balance of convenience. 11. In view of the above, the appeal has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.