Back
1995 Supreme(Del) 128
High Court Of Delhi
G.M.MODI HOSPITAL - Appellant
Versus
SHANKAR SINGH BHANDARI - Respondent
Civil 830 of 1994
Decided On : 02/03/1995
Headnote:1. Civil Procedure Code 1908 - Order XXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 grant of interim injunction — person in occupation claiming to be tenant — Court to tentatively decide the jural relationship between parties.
2. Practice and Procedure : Grant of interim relief discretionery in nature principles to be satisfied, discussed.
FACTS:
The revision petitioner Modi Hospital was defendant in 15 different suits filed by 15 different persons who were in occupation of hutments/quarters build in the hospital premises. The respondents claimed to be tenants in respect of these quarters and alleged that they were employees of the hospital and services of some of them were terminated but they had raised industrial dispute which was pending adjudication in the Industrial Tribunal. It was further alleged by them that they were paying electricity charges to the hospital.
The case of the hospital was that the respondents were not tenants but only trespassers as they were employees of the contractors who were given these project hutments which were built by the building contractors before starting the constitution work of the hospital for night shelter. It was further alleged that these hutments were liable to be demolished.
The Civil Judge did not grant any interim relief to the respondents against dispossession. They preferred an appeal to the Senior Civil judge who granted them temporary injunction against which the hospital had come in revision to the High Court.
Allowing the petition the Court,
Held:
1. From a reading of the plaint and the written statement it is clear that the plaintiffs are only in possession of the premises through the contractors employed by the hospital and they are not even licensees in the term in which the word license as defined in section 52 of the Easements Act. The possession of the plaintiffs cannot be characterised on the basis of any lease or license. They could be in possession only so long as they are doing services. It is only for a temporary period. Whatever way the plaintiffs are inducted in possession of the hutments either through the contractors or by the hospital directly, they do not get any legal right to be in possession and they are at the pleasure of the hospital as we understand the term. The collection of electricity charges by the hospital and the certificate issued by the doctors would not militate against the case of the defendant that the plaintiffs have no legal right to sustain their prayer for injunction. It is for the plaintiffs to conclusively establish in the trial that they had become lessees and they cannot be dispossessed by the hospital. The hospital would not lease out the hutments or quarters inside the campus to his employees because the very purpose of providing shelter to his employees to secure their presence for the services in the hospital to meet various situations to treat the patients in emergency would be defeated.
2. It is fundamental that if a person alleges that he can be dispossessed only through court of law, he must show that he has a right under law to remain in possession till his rights are determined by court of law.
3. Granting an injunction is matter of discretion and in its exercise, the court has to satisfy itself whether the petitioners have a friable case. Before invoking the jurisdiction of the court to seek temporary injunction the petitioners were bound to show that they have a legal right and that there was an invasion of that right.....
4. Temporary injunction sought by the petitioners could be granted if their case was covered by the three well established principles namely:
1. On making out prima facie case;
2. On showing balance of convenience in their favor in that the refusal of the injunction would cause greater inconvenience to them; and
3. Whether on refusal of the injunction they would suffer irreparable loss.
( 1 ) THE revision petitioner Modi Hospital is defendant in 15 suits filed by 15 different plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in all the 15 suits prayed for interim injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of what according to them quarters inside the Hospital Campus. The trial court declined to grant injunction. The plaintiffs in all the 15 suits filed appeals before the learned appellate court challenging the order of the trial court. The lower appellate court allowed the appeal and granted injunction pending the suits. (Hereinafter the plaintiffs will be REFERRED TO as the plaintiffs and the Hospital shall be REFERRED TO as the defendant ): The defendant had filed a single civil revision petition seeking the leave of this Court to file a single revision petition. In C. M-3040/94 this Court has granted the leave and, therefore, a single revision petition is now considered against all the orders of injunction passed in 15 suits. The learned counsel for the parties argued the matter with ability and skill and I was greatly assisted by their arguments. The submissions were forceful and pursuasive and I am free to confess that at the time of the hearing of the matter the pendulum was swinging. I had determined to reflect and circumspect before I reached my conclusion.
( 2 ) THE defendant owns 15 acres plot and in that a hospital has been put up. A hospital has all modern facilities and it can cater to the needs of all section of the community and the hospital is well equipped. In the Campus the hospital has made some temporary provisions for accommodating persons who work in the hospital in some capacity or the other.
( 3 ) THE plaintifs. in the suits are the persons in occupation of the hutments and the defendant claims that the plaintiffs were servants of the contractor as engaged by it and they were not lessees. The plaintiffs put forth the case that they are all direct servants under the management of the hospital and-they had never worked under any contractor, as alleged by the defendant. In other words, the plaintiffs peg their case on the jural relationship of landlord and tenants between the defendant and the plaintiffs. I do not want to render any specific finding on this question at this stage but all the same for the purpose of considering the question of grant of injunction, I have to come to a tentative decision on this point. I have also to consider whether the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie strong"case on the merits for the grant of injunction and I have to weigh the balance of convenience. It is for this limited purpose I now propose to refer to the pleadings in this case. The learned counsel for the respondent has done agreat assistance to the Court by filing the plaint in one of the 15 cases and also a written statement and but for this I would not have been able to appreciate the contentions of the parties as pertheir pleadings. The plaint is filed as annexure R-l. It is stated in paragraph I "that the plaintiff is a regular employee of the defendant hospital working as an electrician since 1. 10. 90 drawing a monthly salary ofrs. l650. 00. " In paragraph 2 it is stated that as per the understanding between the defendant employer and the plaintiff, in part consideration of the plaintiff s services, the defendant provided the plaintiff residential accommodation in the servant quarters attached to and within the hospital compound of the defendant which bear the address as given in the title of the suit, bearing no distinct individual numbers. " In paragraph 3 it is stated "that further, the defendant is also charging the plaintiff an amount of Rs. 25. 00 for the occupancy of the said premises which they call the electricity charges but actually represent part consideration for the lease of the premises. The balance consideration is the requirement and need of the defendant to have employees like the plaintiff in close physical proximity of the defendant hos
