knowledge of the petitioner that the applications have been moved by private respondents for grant of the lease. It is argued that for the same cause of action, two parallel proceedings are not permissible. It is further argued that the petitioner has established that Mustafa Khan had no valid right over the property and in the absence of any right; he could not have made a valid transfer in favour of the petitioner. It is also argued that the forefathers of private respondents were residing in the huts/houses, therefore, lease deeds have been granted in their favour. It is contended that no document showing relation of landlord and tenants has been filed in the present petitions and in the absence of such document, it cannot be presumed that private respondents are tenants of the petitioner. It is further contended that mere payment of property tax would not confer any right in favour of the petitioner. It is also contended that in the pending civil suit, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was moved by the private respondents, but the same was seriously objected to by the petitioner and the said application was rejected. It is stated that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was moved prior to 06.03.2021, the date on which the order of temporary injunction was passed. It is also stated that the order impugned was passed according to the provisions of the Revenue Book Circular and the same is appealable before the Divisional Commissioner. It is also submitted that when an efficacious alternative remedy is available in favour of the petitioner, these petitions are not maintainable.
