Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 668 (ALL)

Sajal Kumar Jauhari v. District Judge, Ballia

2016-02-24

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Rajni Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents. This writ petition arose out of a proceeding under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The release application was filed by three persons namely Sri Ram Chandra Prasad, Sri Prabhu Nath Prasad and Sri Hari Nath Prasad sons of late Ram Khelawan Ram on 23rd August, 2006 with regard to the house in Block No. 1, Ward No. 17, Nagar Palika Parishad, Ballia, the boundaries of which has been given in schedule (?-1) of the plaint. 2. It is stated in the release application that the accommodation given in schedule (?-1) which consists of two rooms, latrine & bathroom and staircase (hereinafter referred to as the "accommodation in question") came in the share of the applicants pursuant to a decree dated 7.9.2002 passed by the Civil Court in a partition suit namely Original Suit No. 203 of 2001 (Ram Chandra and others vs. Smt. Kaushalya Devi and another). The predecessor of the opposite parties namely late Ganesh Prasad was tenant in the accommodation in question. However, the opposite parties had taken possession of the adjoining premises described in schedule (?-1), taking advantage of the dispute between the co-sharers. The applicants/landlord, however, have no concern with the accommodation mentioned at schedule (?-1). The first floor of the accommodation in question is needed for the residence of applicant no. 3 namely Hari Nath and his family. The families of three brothers namely Ram Chandra Prasad, Prabhu Nath Prasad and Hari Nath Prasad, sons of Ram Khelawan Ram, are residing at the first floor of one house existing in Chowk, Station Road (Mahatma Gandhi Marg), Ballia. At the ground floor of the said house, there are shops in possession of the applicants and their tenants. The accommodation in possession of the family of three applicants is insufficient and further as the family has grown with the passage of time, the relationship between the family members has strained, as a result of which the applicant no. 3 Hari Nath Prasad along with his family wanted to shift to the disputed house. 3. The release application was contested by Sri Shyam Das, the opposite party no. 1. 3 Hari Nath Prasad along with his family wanted to shift to the disputed house. 3. The release application was contested by Sri Shyam Das, the opposite party no. 1. The ground taken therein was that the father of the opposite parties namely Sri Ganesh Prasad was tenant of the entire first floor of the house which exist in Block No. 1, Ward No. 17, Nagar Palika Parishad, Ballia. The boundaries of the house given at the foot of the release application are not disputed. However, it is wrongly stated in the release application that in a portion of the first floor mentioned in schedule (?-1) of the release application, Mathura Lal was the tenant, earlier. In fact, this portion of the house was also in the tenancy of Ganesh Prasad, the father of the opposite parties. It is further stated that only Shyam Das had inherited the tenancy as his brother Ghanshyam Das had shifted to his own house much earlier, even during the lifetime of their father. 4. Further the genuineness of the need of the landlord was contested on the ground that he had concealed correct details of his family members and gave different names of his family members at different places. The averments in the release application, therefore, are doubtful and are liable to be rejected on this ground alone. The requirement of applicant no. 3, Hari Nath Prasad to shift in the disputed house, has been objected on the ground that the applicants possess sufficient residential accommodation and they are peacefully living in one house in Chowk, Station Road, Ballia. 5. It appears that during the pendency of the release, Shyam Das the contesting tenant died. His heirs were brought on record and they filed their separate written statement before the Prescribed Authority. In the affidavit filed before the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner namely Sajal Kumar Jauhari son of Shyam Das disputed the need of the landlord on the ground that the alleged decree of partition has been obtained by filing a collusive suit with a view to harass the petitioner. The applicants possess a four storied house in Chowk, Station Road, Ballia, wherein they are peacefully residing. The petitioner inherited the tenancy of the entire first floor of the house, a portion whereof has been demolished by some miscreants. The applicants possess a four storied house in Chowk, Station Road, Ballia, wherein they are peacefully residing. The petitioner inherited the tenancy of the entire first floor of the house, a portion whereof has been demolished by some miscreants. In the remaining portion consisting of two rooms, latrine & bathroom, 'Varandah' and staircase, the petitioner is residing with his family. It is not possible to get a residential house in the nearby area. The petitioner is running his shop in the nearby market and in view of ailment of his mother, it is not possible for him to shift to a distant place. 6. It appears that during pendency of the release, certain documents namely sale deeds in the name of predecessor-in-interest of the applicants paper no. 19-Ga, extract of the property register of Nagar Nigam namely 54-Ga and 55-Ga were brought on record to submit that the house at Block 1, Ward-17, Nagar Palika Parishad, Ballia is spread over three plots namely plot nos. 57,58 and 59 (sub-divided into two plot nos. 59-A/1 and 59-B). The sale deeds dated 30.11.1933 and 14.12.1933 are the basis of title of the applicants to the suit property and a perusal of the sale deeds demonstrates that only plot nos. 57 and 58 were purchased by the predecessor-in-interest of the applicants/landlord. As the eastern portion of the house does not fall over plot nos. 57 and 58 rather it is constructed over plot no. 59 (now plot no. 59-A/1 and 59-B) and therefore, the release application for a property which is not owned by the applicants/landlord, was not maintainable. 7. The Prescribed Authority has rejected the release on two grounds. The first ground is that the applicants/landlord had failed to establish their ownership/title to the suit property. The challenge to the title of the applicants/landlord on the basis of sale deeds was accepted by the Prescribed Authority. It was held that the entries in the Property Register 54-Ga & 55-Ga could not be conclusive proof of their title inasmuch as the sale deeds do not disclose that these plots were purchased by the applicants/landlord. The boundaries of the purchased property mentioned in two sale deeds could not be made basis for identification of the suit property. 8. It was held that the entries in the Property Register 54-Ga & 55-Ga could not be conclusive proof of their title inasmuch as the sale deeds do not disclose that these plots were purchased by the applicants/landlord. The boundaries of the purchased property mentioned in two sale deeds could not be made basis for identification of the suit property. 8. On the bonafide need, it was held that the material facts have been concealed by the applicants/landlord, they did not disclose the correct details of their family members. The plea of disharmony in the family of three brothers was repelled on the basis of an 'Invitation Card' produced by the opposite party before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority has held that as everyone in the family was invited to the wedding of the daughter of applicant no. 3 Hari Nath Prasad, therefore, it could not be said that they have strained relations and could not live together in one house. 9. On comparative hardship, it was held that the tenant would suffer greater hardship than the landlord. 10. The appellate court upset these findings placing reliance upon the extract of property register 54-Ga and 55-Ga, the boundaries of plot/house given in the sale deed and the release application. After comparison of the boundaries given in the sale deed and the release application as well as other documents namely the cases filed under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 filed by Shyam Das, it was found that names of Ram Chandra, Prabhu Nath and Hari Nath, the applicants have been mentioned as owners in the application under Section 30(2) filed by the tenant, Shyam Das. The ownership/title of the landlords applicants, therefore, was admitted to the father of the petitioner. Only objection raised therein by Shyam Das was that on account of family dispute between the co-owners, it was not possible to determine as to whom the rent was payable and, therefore, he moved the Court to deposit the rent. 11. Further it is held that in a summery proceeding, the Rent Controller Authority could not examine the correctness of the Civil Court decree. The applicants have been declared owners by a decree of the Civil Court to the suit property, which has been described at schedule (?-1) of the release application, and, therefore, no exception to their title could be drawn. 12. The applicants have been declared owners by a decree of the Civil Court to the suit property, which has been described at schedule (?-1) of the release application, and, therefore, no exception to their title could be drawn. 12. The need of the applicant no. 3, the landlord to shift to the disputed house was found genuine in view of the family dispute and the fact that the families of three brothers have grown with the passage of time and now a large family having 19 members is living in one house. The need to shift in an independent house set up by the applicants in the release application was found genuine and pressing need. 13. On comparative hardship, it was found that from own averment of the petitioner-tenant in his objection filed before the Prescribed Authority, it was established that he made no effort to search another accommodation. 14. These findings recorded by the lower appellate court are vehemently challenged by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the release was not maintainable at all, the appellate court below had erred in proceeding to decide it on merits. He laid much stress on the plea that the sale deeds, which are the basis of the title of the applicants/landlord do not disclose that plot nos. 59-A/1 and 59-B were purchased by their predecessors. The Prescribed Authority after consideration of these sale deeds rightly recorded that a portion of the house which existed only on plot nos. 57 and 58 was purchased by the predecessor of the applicants. 15. The submission is that Plot no. 59 which is in two part i.e. 59-A/1 and 59-B belonged to one Visheswar Prasad Mishra and was inherited by Gopal Mishra and now his sons. The petitioner had purchased these plots namely plot no. 59-A/1 and 59-B from the heirs of Gopal Mishra by a sale deed dated 18.11.2015. The predecessor-in-interest of the applicants/landlords earlier purchased only two plots namely plot nos. 57 and 58 in the year 1933 from Visheswar Prasad Mishra. It can, therefore, safely be concluded that in fact plot no. 59-A/1 and 59-B were never purchased by the predecessor of the applicants/landlord. 16. The predecessor-in-interest of the applicants/landlords earlier purchased only two plots namely plot nos. 57 and 58 in the year 1933 from Visheswar Prasad Mishra. It can, therefore, safely be concluded that in fact plot no. 59-A/1 and 59-B were never purchased by the predecessor of the applicants/landlord. 16. Even from a perusal of the extract of property register 54-Ga and 55-Ga, Nagar Nigam, it could not have been concluded by the appellate court that the disputed portion of the house which exists on plot no. 59 (59-A/1 and 59-B) was in the ownership of the applicants/landlord. The boundaries given in the release application include the boundaries of the house existing over plot no. 59. Two adjoining houses were constructed on three plots having common passage, the applicants have no concern with the portion of the house existing over plot no. 59 having an area 11-1/2 Dhoor measuring 26'5" towards North South and 13'10" towards East West. 17. Referring to paragraph 7' of the written statement filed by Shyam Das i.e. the father of the petitioner, he submits that the tenant had disputed the landlord-tenant relationship since the beginning and categorically stated in the written statement that he had never paid rent to the applicants. Further in S.C.C. Suit No. 1 of 2008 (Ram Chandra and others vs. Shyam Das and another), the petitioner in his written statement also categorically raised a dispute regarding the ownership of the applicants to the portion of the house which exists at plot no. 59 (59-A/1 and 59-B). 18. Attention of the Court was drawn to paragraph 13' of the affidavit of the petitioner filed before the Prescribed Authority which finds place at page 68' of the paper book in support of the above submissions. 19. He further submits that a suit for injunction namely Original Suit No. 409 of 2008 (Sajal Kumar and others vs. Gopal Ji and others) was filed by the petitioner in which injunction was granted against the applicants/landlord. As a genuine dispute with regard to the title of the applicants/landlord was raised by the opposite parties before the Rent Controller Authority, it was not open for him to go into the disputed question of title in a summery proceeding. 20. Lastly it is submitted that the Prescribed Authority has recorded a categorical finding on the basis of evidence on record. 20. Lastly it is submitted that the Prescribed Authority has recorded a categorical finding on the basis of evidence on record. The documentary evidences being the best piece of evidence, could not have been ignored by placing reliance upon the oral pleadings of the applicant and other evidences produced by them which are only in the nature of secondary evidence pertaining to their title. The burden was upon the landlord to establish that the accommodation in question exists on plot nos. 57 and 58 and not on plot no. 59. 21. He argued that the appellate court could not have reversed the findings of the Prescribed Authority without referring to it. It could not have substituted its own reasoning over the reasoning of the Prescribed Authority, just because another view was possible. 22. On the bonafide need, he urged that there has been no consideration of the case of the tenant on the evidence produced by him while arriving at the conclusion regarding the bonafide need of the landlord. On the assertion of the applicants that there exist a dispute in the family of three brothers, the need was wrongly found genuine. 23. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the release application was liable to be thrown as such inasmuch as the applicants/landlord have concealed material facts therein. They have wrongly pleaded that the house at Chowk, Station Road in which they are living is a two storied house. It is a four storied building having sufficient accommodation for the family of the applicants. The need to shift in the house in question is a mere desire of the applicants to evict the tenant. 24. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgments reported in Ramesh Chandra (since deceased) through LRs. Shrimati Bimla Devi and others vs. District Judge, Etah and another 2003 (1) ARC 675; Pratap Shanker Bajpai vs. Appellate Court/VIIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur and others 2006 (1) ARC 102; Tilak Ram (deceased) through his legal heirs and legal representative vs. Om Prakash and others 1992 (2) ARC 486, Inayat Elahi vs. VIIIth Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others 2001 (1) ARC 301 ; 2001 (42) ALR 245 . 25. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others 2001 (1) ARC 301 ; 2001 (42) ALR 245 . 25. In rebuttal, learned counsel respondents submits that the dispute raised with regard to title of the applicants/landlord was an afterthought of the heirs of tenant Shyam Das against whom release application was filed. There was no dispute with regard to landlord-tenant relationship rather in an application under Section 30(2) which was filed as early as on 8.4.1992 by Shyam Das the applicants/landlord were impleaded as opposite parties along with co-owners of the house which consist of four rooms Kitchen, 'Varandah and latrine & bathroom on the first floor at that point of time. This application was filed taking advantage of the dispute between co-owners. The boundaries of the house which was in tenancy of Shyam Das has been given in the said application which co-relates with the boundaries of tenement given in the release application. The rate of rent has been mentioned as Rs. 30/- per month. The certified copy of application dated 8.4.1992 filed by Shyam Das under Section 30(2) for permission to deposit the rent in the name of opposite parties (including the applicants/landlord) is filed in the Court which is taken on record. 26. This apart, reliance has been placed upon the extract of property register in which names of the applicants/landlord and their predecessor have been entered as owners of the house in question. 27. Now, the dispute between the co-owners has been adjudicated by the Civil Court in a suit for partition filed by the co-owners. A Civil Court decree has been passed in favour of the applicants/landlord with regard to the portion of the house, for release of which, the application has been filed. No other co-owners had disputed the title of the applicants/landlord or came out with the assertion that the release at the instance of the applicant/landlord is not maintainable. 28. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he has no right to object the release raising dispute about the title of the applicants/landlord. The rival title asserted by him on the basis of sale deed dated 18.11.2015 executed after the eviction order was passed in appeal under Section 22 of the Act, cannot be allowed to challenge the findings of facts recorded by the appellate court. 29. The rival title asserted by him on the basis of sale deed dated 18.11.2015 executed after the eviction order was passed in appeal under Section 22 of the Act, cannot be allowed to challenge the findings of facts recorded by the appellate court. 29. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of this Court and Apex Court in Chandrika Prasad (D) Thr. LRs. and another vs. Umesh Kumar Verma and others AIR 2002 SC 108 ; Badrinarayan Chunilal Bhutada vs. Govindram Ramgopal Mundada AIR 2003 SC 2713 ; Babu Lal vs. Vinod Kumar and Others 2001 (1) ARC 246; 2001 (43) ALR 324; Mohammad Sadiq vs. District Judge, Pauri Garhwal and others 2007 (1) ARC 297 and Malpe Vishwanath Acharya and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another 1998 (2) SCC 1 . 30. In rejoinder, it was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding on bonafide need and comparative hardship are perverse inasmuch as the affidavits of three persons namely Gulab son of late Ramgahan Turha, Nehru Prasad son late Thakur Prasad and Kashi Nath son of Ram Naresh have been ignored. 31. He submits that paragraph 10' of the aforesaid affidavits which are annexed as Annexures 8', 9' and 10' are relevant to challenge the bonafide need of the landlord and paragraph 9' of these affidavits are relevant in so far as the comparative hardship of the tenant is concerned. The evidence of the tenant has been ignored by the court below and, therefore, the order of release cannot be sustained. 32. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, the challenge to the title of the applicants-landlord is on the ground that the disputed accommodation exists over plot no. 59-A/1 and 59-B which have not been purchased by them. The basis of title of the applicants-landlord are two sale deeds executed in the year 1993. These sale deeds have been brought on record and it was sought to be demonstrated that only plot nos. 57 and 58 was purchased by the predecessor of the applicants-landlord. The burden, therefore, was upon the applicants to prove that they are actual owners of the disputed accommodation. As they have failed to do so, the release application filed by them, cannot be maintained. 33. 57 and 58 was purchased by the predecessor of the applicants-landlord. The burden, therefore, was upon the applicants to prove that they are actual owners of the disputed accommodation. As they have failed to do so, the release application filed by them, cannot be maintained. 33. To deal with this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is note-worthy that there is no basis for his submission that the disputed accommodation exists over plot no. 59-A/1 and 50-B and the said property belonged to someone else. The sale deed of the year 1933 cannot be made basis to challenge the title of the applicants/landlord. Moreover, the disputed accommodation came in the share of the applicants by a decree of the Civil Court passed in a partition suit no. 203 of 2001 which was filed by the co-owners. This fact is not disputed by the petitioner. The rent control proceedings are summery proceeding and the question of title cannot be decided therein as it requires appreciation of oral and documentary evidences which is not permissible in a summery proceeding. Prima facie, title to the disputed accommodation can be seen by the Rent Controller only with a view to look as to whether the applicant is landlord of the accommodation, release of which is sought by him. 34. On the landlord-tenant relationship, the written statement filed by Shyam Das, the father of the petitioner in the year 2007 becomes much more relevant. In his written statement, he had denied the landlord-tenant relationship on the ground that the decree of partition obtained by the applicants/landlord was a collusive decree and they are not the owners of the disputed accommodation. The challenge was not on the ground that Gopal Das Mishra or his heirs are owners of the disputed accommodation under tenancy as suggested by the petitioners. Even the petitioner in his additional written statement filed after submission does not state this fact. The plea that the heirs of Gopal Das Mishra actual owners has been taken only during the course of arguments in this writ petition to support the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 2015, after the disputed accommodation was released in favour of the applicants/landlord by the appellate court. The plea that the heirs of Gopal Das Mishra actual owners has been taken only during the course of arguments in this writ petition to support the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 2015, after the disputed accommodation was released in favour of the applicants/landlord by the appellate court. The plea in the written statement filed by Shyam Das that he did not pay rent to the applicants/landlord was on account of the fact that there was a dispute between the co-owners. 35. It appears that taking advantage of this fact, Shyam Das, the father of the petitioner started depositing the rent under Section 30 of the Act, however, in the application, he had impleaded the applicants/landlord as opposite parties/landlords. 36. This apart, the documentary evidence filed before the appellate court have been examined and it was found that in the property register of Nagar Nigam, the names of applicants' predecessors and other co-owners have been entered with regard to the house in question. The boundaries in the sale deeds of the year 1933 match with the boundaries of the disputed accommodation given in the release application. 37. The applicants/landlord have come out with the categorical submission that the accommodation which is described in schedule (?-1) of the release application came in their share by virtue of the Civil Court decree dated 7.9.2002 passed in a partition suit filed by the co-owners. No exception of it can be taken in a rent control proceeding either by the appellate court or by this court. Moreover in the additional written statement filed by the petitioner, there is no averment that the disputed accommodation is owned by the heirs of Gopal Das Mishra or the petitioner paid rent to Gopal Das Mishra or his heirs at any point of time. Admittedly the petitioners are occupying the disputed accommodation as tenant, they, therefore, cannot question the title of the co-owners without disclosing the name of the actual owner or the landlord. The petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the Civil Court decree on the ground that it was obtained in a collusive suit. No other co-owner has come forward to object the release. 38. The dispute with regard to the title of the applicants/landlord raised by the petitioner is not a genuine dispute but an effort to diagress the main issue. The petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the Civil Court decree on the ground that it was obtained in a collusive suit. No other co-owner has come forward to object the release. 38. The dispute with regard to the title of the applicants/landlord raised by the petitioner is not a genuine dispute but an effort to diagress the main issue. The findings recorded by the appellate court on the landlord-tenant relationship require no interference. 39. Learned counsel for the parties have relied upon the judgment of this Court and the Apex Court in support of their submissions. As there is no dispute with regard to the preposition relied upon by them, this Court does not think it necessary to burden this judgment by discussion of the rulings relied upon by the counsels. 40. On the bonafide need, a specific stand taken by the applicants in the release application that the families of three brothers are residing in a two storied house. The record indicates that on the challenge given by the tenant that it was a four storied house, the landlord moved an application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner in order to look into the sufficiency of the accommodation in their possession. 41. Moreover, it is categorically pleaded in the release application that the applicant no. 3 Hari Nath wanted to shift to the disputed house in view of the fact that he needed separate residential accommodation for his family. There is complete disharmony in the families of three brothers which consist of their married sons and daughter-in-laws. The appellate court considered the affidavit of Ram Chandra, the applicant no. 1 and recorded finding of fact that there are 19 members in the family of the applicants/landlord and, therefore, there is a possibility that they may not be having cordial relationship. The need of the applicant no. 3 to shift to the disputed house, cannot be said to be illusory. 42. The documents namely Invitation Card brought on record by the petitioner to assert that in fact there is no fight in the family as the entire of family of applicant nos. 1 and 2 was invited in the wedding of the daughter of the applicant no. 3 has been considered by the Appellate Court below and has rightly been rejected. The documents namely Invitation Card brought on record by the petitioner to assert that in fact there is no fight in the family as the entire of family of applicant nos. 1 and 2 was invited in the wedding of the daughter of the applicant no. 3 has been considered by the Appellate Court below and has rightly been rejected. The need for additional residential accommodation of the landlord was rightly found genuine placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Braham Kumar and others vs. Raja Ram and others 2006 (1) ARC 93. 43. In so far as the assertions made by three witnesses of the petitioner/tenant in paragraph 10' of their affidavits is concerned, they have supported the case of the tenant by stating that the disputed accommodation is not suitable for the need of applicant no. 3, the motive of applicant no. 3 is to evict the sitting tenant and let out this accommodation at a higher rent. On the basis of this assertion, the findings of fact recorded for the bonafide need of the landlord, cannot be interfered. 44. On comparative hardship, the appellate court considered the averments of the petitioner in the written statement wherein he has stated that it was not possible for him to get an alternative accommodation in the same locality and he cannot shift to distant place for the reason that he has to look after his mother. The affidavits of three witness were filed to support the case of the tenant and paragraph 9' of these affidavits are being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 45. The averment in paragraph 9' of the abovenoted affidavits are virtually the same. They state that they have personal knowledge of the fact that the father of the petitioner namely Shyam Das made an effort to get another accommodation on rent but he could not find a suitable place. No other person in the locality is ready to let out his house to the petitioner and he could not get a house nearby his shop despite his best effort. 46. No other person in the locality is ready to let out his house to the petitioner and he could not get a house nearby his shop despite his best effort. 46. The affidavits of these persons of the locality in support of the hardship of the petitioner, cannot be considered in view of the fact that neither the petitioner nor his witnesses disclosed as to whom the petitioner nor his father had approached and who had refused to give his house on rent. Moreover, the assertion is that the petitioner could not get any other house in the same locality. This plea cannot be made basis to interfere in the findings of the appellate court on the comparative hardship. The tenant can get another house in another locality. Merely because the shop of the petitioner is located near the disputed house, he cannot be said to suffer more hardship than the landlord, in case, the release is allowed. The landlord cannot be deprived of his right to live peacefully in his own house. It is established from the record that in fact no effort has been made by the tenant to search an alternative accommodation. 47. In view of the above discussion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no infirmity is found in the order of release passed by the appellate court. It is, therefore, provided that : - (1) The petitioner shall file an undertaking alongwith a certified copy of this order within a period of four weeks before the Court below that he would vacate the premisesccommodation in question on or before 1st February, 2017. (2) In case the petitioner fails to furnish undertaking or vacate the premises within the period given above, appropriate proceeding for his eviction may be initiated. 48. It goes without saying that the observations made by this Court on the title of the applicants/landlord will not come in the way of the petitioner in the pending suit for injunction namely Original Suit No. 666 of 2015 filed by him on the basis of sale deed dated 18.11.2015. 49. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is dismissed.