2022 Supreme(AP) 1358

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Subba Reddy Satti, J.
Kolluru Sudhakar Rao – Appellant
Versus
Polineni Nagabhushanam – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 463 of 2019
Decided On : 19-04-2022

A person who comes to the Court with unclean hands and acts in an inequitable and unfair manner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction.

Headnote:

INJUNCTION - LEASE - EVICTION - UNCLEAN HANDS - DISCRETIONARY RELIEF - SECTION 38, 41 OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: The High Court dismissed a second appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the appellant/plaintiff was not entitled to a discretionary injunction against the defendant/landlord to prevent eviction from the leased premises. The Court held that the plaintiff came to the Court with unclean hands by suppressing material facts, including the existence of a written lease agreement and undertakings to vacate the shop. The Court also found that the plaintiff's cause of action was not true and correct, as he had failed to vacate the shop despite entering into written agreements to do so. The Court further held that the plaintiff's conduct disentitled him to the assistance of the Court under Section 41(i) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which bars injunctions where the conduct of the plaintiff has been such as to disentitle him to such assistance. The Court also held that the findings of fact recorded by the lower courts were not perverse and were based on pleadings and evidence. The Court declined to interfere with the findings of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as there was no substantial question of law involved in the appeal.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for injunction against the defendant/landlord to prevent eviction from the leased premises. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant demanded an increase in rent and additional advance, and threatened to evict him if he did not comply. The defendant filed a written statement denying the allegations and contending that the plaintiff was a chronic defaulter who had failed to vacate the premises despite entering into written agreements to do so. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court found that the plaintiff came to the Court with unclean hands by suppressing material facts, including the existence of a written lease agreement and undertakings to vacate the shop. The Court also found that the plaintiff's cause of action was not true and correct, as he had failed to vacate the shop despite entering into written agreements to do so. The Court further held that the plaintiff's conduct disentitled him to the assistance of the Court under Section 41(i) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which bars injunctions where the conduct of the plaintiff has been such as to disentitle him to such assistance. The Court also held that the findings of fact recorded by the lower courts were not perverse and were based on pleadings and evidence.

Issues: 1. Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to a discretionary injunction against the defendant/landlord to prevent eviction from the leased premises? 2. Whether the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff is true and correct? 3. Whether the appellant/plaintiff came to the Court with unclean hands and is therefore not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction? 4. Whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts warrant any interference by the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a discretionary injunction because he came to the Court with unclean hands by suppressing material facts and because his cause of action was not true and correct. 2. The Court held that the plaintiff's conduct disentitled him to the assistance of the Court under Section 41(i) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which bars injunctions where the conduct of the plaintiff has been such as to disentitle him to such assistance. 3. The Court held that the findings of fact recorded by the lower courts were not perverse and were based on pleadings and evidence. The Court declined to interfere with the findings of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as there was no substantial question of law involved in the appeal.

Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the second appeal at the stage of admission, with no costs.