JUDGMENT
S.B. Wad, J.
(1) This is an appeal against the order of the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi, under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code restraining the appellants from dispossessing the respondent Naresh Chand Jain from premises No. 6, Pusa Road, New Delhi. The order was passed in Suit No. 208/84 filed by Naresh Chand Jain for declaration and permanent injunction on the plea that he is an owner by adverse possession of one room, kitchen and bath room. This litigation has earlier history. The premises in question, namely, 6, Pusa Road, New Delhi, were let out by the appellants to Prakash Chand Jain. The appellants filed the proceedings for eviction against Prakash Chand Jain and the present respondent Naresh Chand Jain on various grounds, inter alia that Prakash Chand Jain had unlawfully sub-let a part of the premises to Naresh Chand Jain. The Rent Controller granted a decree for eviction. The order was confirmed by the Tribunal and by this Court. In this Court an attempt was made to produce additional evidence by Naresh Chand Jain to show that he was in possession adversely since 1955. Justice Sultan Singh, who heard that matter, held that no evidence was produced to show that the possession of Naresh Chand was protected under law and that he was holding the possession in an independent right. The learned Judge further found that the premises in the alleged occupation of Naresh Chand Jain formed part of the premises let out to Prakash Chand Jain. Both Prakash Chand Jain and Naresh Cband Jain the present respondent filed Special Leave Petitions in the Supreme Court. The Special Leave Petition filed by Naresh Chand Jain was Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8184 of 1984. This Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 14-8-1984 permitting the respondent Naresh Chand Jain to continue in the possession and occupation of the premises up to 30-6-1985. in other words, the Supreme Court gave fifteen months time to Naresh Chand Jain to vacate the premises. The Supreme Court, while dismissing the Special Leave Petition and permitting Naresh Chand Jain to continue in occupation, laid down some conditions. It was stated in the order that in default of compliance with any one or more of these conditions or if the undertaking is not filed as required within the stipulated time, the decree shall become executable forthwith. The undertaking was to be filed within four weeks of the order, that is, the undertaking was to be filed on or before 14-9-1984. It may be noted that before the learned single Judge passed his order on 27-2-1984, N. C. Jain had already filed his objections under Section 25 and the same were pending before the Rent Controller. They are still not decided. The question of granting an interim injunction from eviction of Naresh Chand Jain is to be appreciated on this background. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court. On merits, therefore, prima fade it has to be held that the Supreme Court rejected all the contentions of Naresh Chand Jain and also upheld the findings of the court below that Naresh Chand Jain was a sub-tenant and the premises allegedly in his possession formed part of the premises let out to Prakash Chand Jain. The present suit was filed by Naresh Chand Jain in the Civil Court claiming that the Rent Court bad no jurisdiction to decide the question of title. He has also produced some new documents in the suit. Even assuming that the present suit is maintainable the question is whether in face of the order of the Supreme Court and conduct of Naresh Chand Jain before the Supreme Court the discretion should be exercised in his favor so as to permit him possession of the premises. The Special Leave Petition paper book has been produced. Besides the High Court order every order and every relevant document bad been produced in the Special Leave Petition and the Supreme Court had an opportunity to look into it. Naresh Chand Jain did not file the undertaking within the stipulated time or any time thereafter. The order of the Supreme Court, that is, the eviction order, in terms of the Supreme Court, had, therefore, become enforceable forthwith. Without giving an undertaking Naresh Chand Jain availed of the period of continuation of possession granted by the Supreme Court. Considering the conduct of Naresh Chand Jain I do not find that the discretion could have been exercised in his favor as is done by the trial court. Whether the documents produced by him now in the suit throw any light on his case of adverse possession and what is their legal effect has to be considered in the suit by the trial court. In face of the order of the Supreme Court and his conduct of Naresh Chand Jain is not entitled to any order in the nature of injunction against the appellants. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. The possession shall be delivered forthwith.
(2) For the reasons stated above the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.