ORDER
G.C. Garg, J.
1. Defendant-respondents are admittedly the landowners. Plaintiff-petitioner claims to be tenant on the land in dispute measuring 40 kanals 3 marlas on payment of 1/3rd batai. He claims tenancy from the year 1982 onwards.
2. Apprehending his dispossession, he filed a suit in August, 1991 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff except in due course of law. Plaintiff also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking ad interim injunction. Learned trial Court on a consideration of the matter by order dated May 7, 1994 came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has no prima facie case and the balance of convenience is also not in his favour and that irreparable loss would be caused to the defendants in case the stay application is allowed. He consequently dismissed the application.
3. Plaintiff aggrieved by the order of the trial Court filed an appeal. Learned District Judge by the detailed order agreed with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and consequently dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision at the instance of the plaintiff.
4. Notice of motion was issued in the revision petition for September 28, 1994 and meanwhile status quo regarding possession was ordered to be maintained. The revision petition was ultimately admitted on November 30, 1994. The order of status quo was modified and the orders passed by the Courts below were stayed meanwhile.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that plaintiff is continuing in possession of the suit land on payment of 1/3rd batai for the last about 15 years and thus Courts below have acted illegally and with material irregularity in dismissing the application for ad interim relief.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner was specifically put a question as to whether petitioner has paid the rent/batai to the landowners for the period from 1982 to 1997 or not. Counsel submitted that he has no instructions in that behalf and replied that even if it be taken that rent/batai has not been paid, petitioner is entitled to the injunction as he is in possession of the land in dispute.
7. On a careful consideration of the matter and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am unable to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not shown by reference to the material on record that the rent/batai already stands paid either under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act by moving an appropriate application there-under or against receipt to the landowners. Plaintiff only wants to remain in possession without payment of any rent. As per his own case, he is liable to pay rent which he has not paid. Moreover, the two Courts below on appreciation of the material placed on record have recorded a concurrent finding that plain tiff has no prima facie case in his favour and balance of convenience is also not in his favour. No material has been brought to my notice which may show that the orders are vitiated and are liable to be set aside in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Even in equity, petitioner is not entitled to remain in possession of the land because of the fact that he has not taken any step for payment of rent even from the date of suit till today. I, thus, see no ground to interfere. The revision petition is, consequently, dismissed.
8. However, if petitioner pays rent/mesne profits, against receipt or deposits in Court, at the rate of Rs.8000/- per acre per year in respect of the disputed land within a period of 15 days from today for the crop year 1991-92 upto the crop year 1997-98, he shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute till the final disposal of the suit. In case the amount is not paid/deposited, petitioner shall not be entitled to the protection of the possession over the land in dispute.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage pointed out that as per the defence taken in the written statement land in dispute was handed over to the Forest Department in the year 1992 for its development and plantation of trees. If that be so plaintiff will not be in possession, the Forest Department being in possession of land. Since the counsel has taken a definite stand that plaintiff is in possession of land in dispute, the argument has no merit.
10. There is still another aspect of the matter, plaintiff filed the suit in August, 1991 and a period of more than six years has lapsed and he has not concluded his evidence despite availing of two years for the purpose of his evidence. Case is now listed for plaintiffs evidence for April 8, 1998. Since petitioner has not paid rent/batai for a period of over 7 years, the trial Court is directed to prepone the date for the evidence of the plaintiff and fix the same in the end of February, 1998 and thereafter afford two more opportunities in the month of March, 1998. The defendants shall similarly be afforded two opportunities in the month of April, 1998 and the suit shall be positively disposed of before the end of May, 1998. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on January 15, 1998 so as to enable the trial Court to prepone the date and fix the case in February 1998 for evidence of plaintiff and to carry out the directions herein contained in this order.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court forthwith and a copy may be given dasti to the counsel for the parties, if applied.