1983 Supreme(Del) 39

High Court Of Delhi
RAMJI LAL MAHINDAR KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
NARESH KUMARI - Respondent
Decided On : 02/15/1983

The Court held that a temporary injunction should be granted if the plaintiff has a prima facie case, the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff, and irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted.

Headnote:

INJUNCTION - TEMPORARY - PRINCIPLES - AMENDMENT OF PLAINT - LEAVE - PRINCIPLES - EVACUEE INTEREST (SEPARATION) ACT, 1951 - COMPOSITE PROPERTY - ROOF OF SINGLE STOREYED BUILDING - PRESUMPTION OF INCLUSION IN TENANCY - BURDEN OF PROOF ON LANDLORD - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - IRREPARABLE INJURY.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs, a registered partnership firm, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants, alleging that they were tenants in the shop along with the roof bearing Municipal No. 635, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, that the building was a single storeyed building and they had been using the said shop and the roof for the last more than 38 years, that defendant No. 1 approached for enhancing the rent from Rs. 130.00 to Rs. 200.00 but they refused, and defendant No. 1 in collusion with defendant No. 2 threatened to take possession of the open roof by force and to raise unauthorised construction over the roof and thus prevent the plaintiffs from the use of the tenanted portion without any just, and sufficient cause, that the property bearing Municipal Nos. 634-635 was a composite property under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act 1951, that defendant No. I has no right, title or interest in the property and that the plaintiffs approached the defendants not to interfere with their possession of the shop and roof. The plaintiffs thus prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from taking forcible possession of the shop and the roof otherwise than in due course of law and from causing any interference in their peaceful use and enjoyment of the tenanted premises in any manner whatsoever.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the plaintiffs had a prima facie case for the grant of the temporary injunction, that the balance of convenience was also in favour of the plaintiffs in restraining the respondents from dispossessing them from the shop and the roof, and also from raising any structure over the roof, and that irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiffs if the injunction was not granted.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs had a prima facie case for the grant of the temporary injunction? 2. Whether the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiffs? 3. Whether irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiffs if the injunction was not granted? 4. Whether the trial Court erred in refusing to grant leave to amend the plaint?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the plaintiffs had a prima facie case for the grant of the temporary injunction as they had been in possession of the shop and the roof for more than 38 years, and the defendants had threatened to take forcible possession of the roof and raise unauthorised construction over it. 2. The Court held that the balance of convenience was also in favour of the plaintiffs as they were in possession of the property and the defendants had not shown any right to interfere with their possession. 3. The Court held that irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiffs if the injunction was not granted as the defendants might take forcible possession of the roof and raise unauthorised construction over it, which would cause inconvenience to the plaintiffs and also affect the value of the property. 4. The Court held that the trial Court erred in refusing to grant leave to amend the plaint as the amendment was necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy between the parties.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the revision petitions, set aside the impugned judgments and orders, and granted the plaintiffs' application for leave to amend the plaint. The Court also issued a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from taking forcible possession of the shop and the roof, and from raising any construction over the roof till the decision of the suit.