Back
High Court Of Calcutta
A. K. SEN, SUDHIR RANJAN ROY
INDIAN CABLE CO.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
SUMITRA CHAKRABORTY - Respondent
F. M. A. 415 Of 1984
Decided On : 02/28/1985
INJUNCTION - RESTORATION OF POSSESSION - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT - LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP - MANDATORY INJUNCTION - STATUS QUO - WRONGFUL DISPOSSESSION - INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION: 1. A court has the power to grant mandatory injunctions on interlocutory applications in exceptional cases, such as where a defendant is found to be "stealing a march" on the plaintiff. 2. The court should not hesitate to exercise its power to restore the status quo ante even at the interlocutory stage by an order of mandatory injunction simply because the status quo at the date of the filing of the suit is different from what it was before. 3. A tenant who has been wrongfully dispossessed is entitled to be restored to possession even on an interlocutory application.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-company, a monthly tenant, was dispossessed from the suit property by the defendant-landlady in a surreptitious manner and in breach of the plaintiff's statutory protection under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession and for injunction. On an application for injunction for restoration of possession, the trial court refused to grant the injunction on the grounds that the present suit was barred under O. 2, R. 2 of the Civil Procedure Code and that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim an order of injunction for restoration which would mean not only granting the main relief in the suit on an interlocutory injunction but would mean something more than restoration of status quo as on the date of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the trial court erred in refusing to grant the injunction. The court found that the plaintiff had made out an exceptional case where the court should grant interim relief by way of restoration of possession. The court noted that the defendant had wrongfully dispossessed the plaintiff in a surreptitious manner to forestall legal proceeding against her and that such dispossession had been effected in gross violation of the plaintiff company's protection under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the present suit was barred under O. 2, R. 2 of the Civil Procedure Code? 2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to claim an order of injunction for restoration which would mean not only granting the main relief in the suit on an interlocutory injunction but would mean something more than restoration of status quo as on the date of the suit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the present suit was not barred under O. 2, R. 2 of the Civil Procedure Code because the cause of action of the two suits was totally different. The earlier suit was based on a cause of action which arose on and before March 15, 1982, when the defendant started abusing and harassing the plaintiff's men and agents in the matter of getting access to the suit property. The present suit was based on a different cause of action, namely, the dispossession itself which arose only on March 24, 1982. 2. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to claim an order of injunction for restoration even though it would mean granting the main relief in the suit on an interlocutory injunction. The court noted that the defendant had wrongfully dispossessed the plaintiff in a surreptitious manner to forestall legal proceeding against her and that such dispossession had been effected in gross violation of the plaintiff company's protection under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The court found that this was an exceptional case where the court should grant interim relief by way of restoration of possession.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and granted an interim order of injunction directing restoration of possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case Indian Cable Co. Ltd. v. Sumitra Chakraborty:
Legal Principles Established * Courts possess the power to grant mandatory injunctions on interlocutory applications in exceptional cases, particularly when a defendant is found to be "stealing a march" on the plaintiff to forestall legal proceedings (!) (!) . * There is no absolute bar in law preventing a court from granting an interlocutory relief that amounts to granting the main relief claimed in the suit, provided the circumstances are exceptional (!) . * A court should not hesitate to restore the status quo ante via a mandatory injunction even if the status quo at the date of filing the suit differs from the original state, especially when that change was caused by the defendant's wrongful act (!) (!) (!) . * A tenant who has been wrongfully dispossessed is entitled to restoration of possession even at the interlocutory stage (!) .
Facts of the Case * The plaintiff company, a monthly tenant, was dispossessed from the suit property by the defendant landlady in a surreptitious manner on March 24, 1982, in breach of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (!) (!) . * The dispossession was effected after the defendant received rent in advance and allegedly in collusion with a police officer who took inventory and handed over possession to the defendant without proper inquiry or notice to the tenant (!) (!) . * The defendant filed a counter-suit and a caveat immediately after taking possession, attempting to legitimize her wrongful act (!) (!) . * The plaintiff was unaware of the dispossession until the defendant disclosed it in her affidavit-in-opposition to an earlier suit regarding access issues (!) (!) .
Issues Decided * Whether the present suit for recovery of possession was barred under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code due to the pendency of an earlier suit (!) (!) . * Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an interlocutory injunction for restoration of possession, which effectively grants the main relief of the suit (!) (!) .
Court's Findings and Decision * The suit was not barred under Order 2, Rule 2 because the cause of action in the present suit (dispossession on March 24, 1982) was totally different from the earlier suit (harassment regarding access before March 15, 1982) (!) . * The defendant's conduct was deemed mala fide and exceptional, as she wrongfully dispossessed the tenant to forestall legal proceedings, aided by an abuse of process by the police (!) (!) . * The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's order, and granted an interim injunction directing the restoration of possession to the plaintiff (!) .
( 1 ) THIS appeal from an original order is by the plaintiff, the Indian Cable Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff company ). The order impugned is one dated May 12, 1983, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore, thereby refusing a prayer for injunction made by the plaintiff on an application under O. 30, Rr. 1 and 2 read with S. 151 of the Civil P. C. Such an application was filed in Title Suit No. 206 of 1982 instituted on September 23, 1982. The plaintiff's case as made in the plaint and in the application for injunction is shortly as follows :
( 2 ) SINCE July 1,1970, the plaintiff-company had been a monthly tenant under the defendant/respondent in respect of the suit premises which is a first floor flat at premises No. 510, Jodhpur Park, Calcutta, initially at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- which was increased on the request of the defendant to Rs. 1,184/- with effect from April 1, 1981. The suit property was being used by the plaintiff company for the purpose of providing residential accommodation to its officers and one Sri R. N. Gupta an officer of the plaintiff-company was in occupation of the suit premises up to January 31, 1982, when he retired and vacated the suit property on and from February 1, 1982. On February 2, 1982, the plaintiff caused an inventory to be made of the furniture, fixtures and fittings of the plaintiff lying in the said property under the signature of the said Sri R. N. Gupta and the plaintiff's officer Sri G. N. Chatterji. To protect the plaintiff's property, the plaintiff-company engaged Messrs. Security Consultants and Deployment Services to provide security guards and such guards were provided on and from February 2, 1982. The defendant was quite aware of those facts, the rent for the months of February and March, 1982, was duly paid and received by the defendant. The defendant, however, after duly receiving the rent for the month of March 1982, in advance started abusing the security guards and preventing them from having ingress and egress to and from the suit property since March 15, 1982, and a complaint to that effect was lodged with the Lake Police Station on March 25,1982. On March 29,1982, the plaintiff filed a suit, being Title Suit No. 168 of 1982 in the 3rd court of the learned Munsif at Alipore praying for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's right of ingress and egress to the suit property and for a mandatory injunction for removal of all obstructions to the access of the plaintiff's men and agents to the suit property. On March 30, 1982, on an application for interim injunction, the learned Munsif passed an ad interim order directing maintenance of status quo and the plaintiff preferred an appeal on April 1, 1982. In the appeal, the plaintiff-company filed an application for temporary injunction to which an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the defendant on April 2, 1982, alleging therein for the first time that she had taken possession of the said flat on March 24, 1982. The plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the defendant had surreptitiously taken possession of the suit property, when Title Suit No. 168 of 1982 was filed. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of possession and for injunction.
( 3 ) HAVING filed such a suit the plaintiff filed an application for injunction for restoration of possession of the suit property on the allegation that the plaintiff having been in lawful possession of the suit property as a monthly tenant and the defendant having obtained the rent for the said property even for the month of March 1982, took the law in her own hands in wrongfully throwing out the plaintiff in a surreptitious manner and in breach of the plaintiff's statutory protection under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. It was claimed that the defendant acted not only wrongfully but also mala fide when she forestalled the suit aga
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
