No Injunction against Landlord – against eviction of tenant

TENANT CANNOT SEEK INJUNCTION AGAINST LANDLORD WHEREBY LATTER MAY BE RESTRAINED FROM EVICTING THE TENANT _ FOR THE SAME IS DESTRUCTIVE OF VERY OWNERSHIP RIGHTS OF THE LANDLORD

Madras High Court

Saraswathi Ammal vs Viveka Primary School on 30 April, 2001
Equivalent citations: AIR 2001 Mad 417
Author: S Jagadeesan
Bench: S Jagadeesan

JUDGMENT

S. Jagadeesan, J.

1. The appeal has been filed with the delay of 12 days. Notice was served on the respondent. As the counsel for the respondent has no objection, the delay had been condoned, and the appeal was numbered and posted for admission. Since both the counsel are present, the second appeal is taken up for final disposal with the consent of counsel on either side, as the question for decision falls in a narrow campus.

2. The defendant in O.S. No. 166of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif, Ranipet is the appellant herein.

3. The respondent herein, who is the tenant under the appellant herein filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her men and her agents from evicting the plaintiff institution from the schedule mentioned property.

4. The averment in the plaint is that the appellant herein is trying to evict the respondent herein in order to lease it out for higher rent and the appellant further attempts to evict the respondent herein without following the due process of law. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction.

5. This claim of the respondent herein was opposed by the appellant herein.

6. However, the trial Court, by its Judgment and decree dated 9-4-1997, decreed the suit as prayed for. The relief granted is as follows :

(Vernacular matter omitted–Ed.)

7. The appellant herein preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 32 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, Vellore District. The learned Subordinate Judge, who heard the appeal, concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal with costs. Hence, the second appeal.

8. In the second appeal, the only question arises for consideration is as to whether a tenant is entitled for an order of permanent injunction preventing the landlord from evicting him from the lease hold property.

9. Mr. Krishnasamy, learned counsel for the appellant contended that there cannot be any permanent injunction against the landlord from evicting the tenant. If such an injunction is to be sustained, then, it will be an embargo on the right of the landlord in enjoying the property. Hence, thejudgments and decree of the Courts below cannot at all be sustained.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Subramanian fairly conceded that there cannot be any permanent injunction against the landlord from evicting the tenant from the premises. Hence, the decree may be modified by stating that the landlord, the appellant cannot evict the tenant, the respondent without due process of law.

11. This Court carefully considered the contentions of both the learned counsel. As stated already, the relief sought for in the plaint is one for permanent injunction restraining the appellant herein, her men, and her agents from evicting the respondent institution from the scheduled mentioned property. Hence, it is clear that the relief sought-for by the respondent is a permanent injunction against the landlord — the appellant herein from evicting the respondent herein. When, admittedly, such a relief cannot be granted, the decrees of the Courts below also cannot be sustained, since it is an embargo on the right of the appellant to enjoy the property. Hence, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below cannot be sustained. Further, there cannot be a permanent lease in favour of the respondent.

12. However, the Courts below have totally erred in granting such a decree for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from evicting the respondent for ever. Though the counsel for the respondent is very fair in seeking for the modification of the decree, this Court is not inclined to consider the same for the following reason.

13. Considering the fact that the suit was laid by the respondent for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from evicting the respondent for ever, this Court is of the view that the respondent has resorted to this to prevent the appellant from claiming any enhanced rent. Admittedly, for the past six years, there is no enhancement of the rent because of the pendency of the proceedings. The respondent having occupied the premises for commercial purpose, he is duty bound to increase the rent every year. When this Court asked as to whether the respondent is willing to pay the rent at Rs. 700/-p.m. in future, as the existing rent prior to the suit is Rs. 550/-, without even consulting his client, who was present in Court, Mr. Subramanian, counsel for the respondent replied that it will be a commitment for the respondent. This is clear that the counsel had assumed the role of the respondent.

14. As the counsel for the respondent unceremoniously rejected the offer of the Court which is in the interest of both the parties, this Court is also rejecting his request to modify the decree of the Courts below. When the counsel for the respondent conceded that the decree of the trial Court as confirmed by the lower appellate Court cannot be sustained, the appeal has to be allowed. As the respondent initiated the proceeding with deliberate intention of preventing the appellant from seeking any enhancement of rent or his eviction, this Court is of the view that the respondent must be directed to pay the cost.

15. Accordingly, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside. The second appeal is allowed with cost of Rs. 3,500/- (Rupees Three thousand and five hundred only). The above C.M.P. is dismissed.