The tenant has a right to quiet enjoyment of the premises, including the right of way, as provided in S. 108 (c) of the T. P. Act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is instituted by the plaintiff-appellant in 0. S. No. 595 of 1980 on the file of the tenth Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore and is directed against the order passed by him or) 1. A, No. I in the suit rejecting the prayer for temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff-appellant that he is the tenant of suit premises in which he is running a printing press under the name and style "hosali Press (P) Limited". It is his case that he had a right of way to the press through a 'cutcha' road, which reaches the main entrance of the press. It is his further case that he was bringing articles required by the press through vans, cars and trucks by this road and according to him feelings became strained between the landlord and tenant as an application for eviction was instituted against the tenant by the landlord-defendant for eviction. It is the further case- of the plaintiff-appellant that with a view to harass the plaintifft and the landlord has been trying to block the 'cutcha' road leading to the main entrance by putting up a shed actually on the 'cutcha' road itself, thus obstructing substantially the path leading to the press, as also the business of the plaintiff carried on in the premises. Having instituted the suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from thus obstructing the quiet enjoyment of the premises, the plaintiff instituted an application for temporary injunction, in the suit. The trial court was pleased to issue notice on the said application and the defendant on entering appearance resisted the application. The same was heard by the trial court. Parties filed affidavits and a Commissioner was also got appointed by the plaintiff and the commissioner submitted his report along with the sketch. The trial court appreciating the material on record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had a path leading to his press and as such it was not necessary to issue any temporary injunction order during the pendency of the suit. Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the 1. A. by its order dated 27-11-1980. Aggrieved by the said order the plaintiff has come up in the above appeal before this Court.

( 3 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the trial court materially ignored the report of the Commissioner and failed to appreciate that the defendant was actually trying to put up a shed on the road itself, thus substantially obstructing the road leading to the press and in turn obstructing the business of the tenant and his right of quiet enjoyment of the promise. Thus, he submits that the order of the trial court was perverse and hence appeal should be allowed and the temporary injunction issued by this court should be made absolute.

( 4 ) IT may be mentioned that as soon as the appeal was admitted this Court was pleased to issue a temporary injection order on. A.. submitted by the appellant before this court in the following terms:

"it is just and proper to issue a temporary injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from proceeding with the further construction of the building till this appeal is Heard and decided by this court. 1, therefore, allow L A. 0. and direct the issue of a temporary in, junction restraining the respondent/defendant from proceeding with the further construction of the building detailed in the schedule to 1. A.. "

( 5 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for respondent in the appeal argued supporting the order passed on L A, No. I by this trial court. He, further submitted that an order granting or refusing interim injunction order being essentially in the discretion of the trial court, the appellate court should be slow in interfering with such discretionary order.

( 6 ) THE sole point, therefore, that arises for my consideration in this appeal is -Whether the trial court was justified in refusing the interim injunction order in favour of the Plaintiff in its discretion?

( 7 ) IT is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document