Ownership dispute resolved in favor of Nagar Nigam, Jaipur, tenants to vacate premises per Court order

The High Court affirmed the District Judge's decision that the disputed property belonged to Nagar Nigam, Jaipur, terminating any tenancy rights. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the petitioners' appeal against the injunction orders, finding no reason to interfere. The Court also ruled that no appeal lay against the Single Judge's decision under Article 227, directing the petitioners to vacate the premises by a specified date upon filing an undertaking, failing which the special leave petitions would be dismissed.

---

---

Issues involved: Dispute over tenancy rights and property ownership, validity of injunction orders, appeal jurisdiction under Article 227.

1. Dispute over tenancy rights and property ownership:
The petitioners claimed to be tenants paying rent under a Rent Deed with respondent nos. 2 & 3. The suit for declaration and injunction was filed regarding the property in dispute, which was under question whether it belonged to the respondents or Nagar Nigam, Jaipur. Various court orders were passed, including an interim injunction in favor of the petitioners, which was later set aside by the District Judge and further upheld by the High Court. The courts found that the Nigam had the right to get the disputed property vacated, and any tenancy had been terminated in 1987. The High Court affirmed the District Judge's order, stating it correctly appreciated the governing principles in the dispute.

2. Validity of injunction orders:
The petitioners filed Special Leave Petitions challenging the High Court's order dismissing their appeal against the District Judge's decision. The learned Single Judge and Division Bench decisions were also under scrutiny. The counsel for the petitioners did not press the argument against the Division Bench's order, acknowledging that no appeal could lie against the Single Judge's decision. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Single Judge in dismissing the injunction application, considering the facts and evidence presented.

3. Appeal jurisdiction under Article 227:
The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the LPA as not maintainable, as no appeal could lie against the Single Judge's order exercising revisional jurisdiction under Article 227. The Special Leave Petitions were filed against the Single Judge's order and the Division Bench's decision. The Supreme Court upheld the Single Judge's order and directed the petitioners to vacate the premises by a specified date, subject to filing an undertaking. Failure to file the undertaking within two weeks would result in the dismissal of the special leave petitions.

---