http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: LUMBINI NAGAR COOP. HOUSINGSOCIETY LTD. AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/08/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1995 (6)   623        1995 SCALE  (5)159

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       O R D E R      Leave granted.      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  (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.      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 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  Bench, was not inclined to grant injunction as sought for, we are not persuaded to take a different view in that behalf.  Injunction being  a discretionary  order,  the High Court  has refused to exercise the discretion 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2