Back
2021 Supreme(J&K) 557
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Javed Iqbal Wani, J.
Commissioner State Taxes & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Zaffar Abass Din – Respondent
CM(M) No. 44 of 2020
Decided On : 20-04-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sajad Ashraf
For the Respondent: Fayaz Ahmad Sodagar
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of interim injunction is discretionary and must be based on the plaintiff establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The court emphasized the need for all three principles to co-exist for the grant of interim injunction.
Headnote:
Rent Recovery - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - [Order 18.02.2020, Order 12.03.2020] - The court discussed the provisions of law related to injunction and interim relief, emphasizing the need for the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The court highlighted the importance of all three principles co-existing for the grant of interim injunction. The judgment referenced the case of Best Seller Retail (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. & Ors. and emphasized that irreparable injury means a material injury that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages. The court found that the plaintiff's claim for rent was quantifiable and compensable, and therefore, the plaintiff could not suffer irreparable loss and injury, leading to the setting aside of the impugned orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to set aside orders passed by the trial court related to a civil suit filed by the respondent for recovery of arrears of rent. The trial court had passed impugned orders directing the parties to maintain status quo and to pay the balance amount of arrears of rent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had erred in granting the impugned orders as the plaintiff could not suffer irreparable loss and injury if the injunction/interim relief was not granted. The court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned orders, directing the trial court to reconsider the application for interim relief afresh.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court could have passed the impugned orders in a suit seeking recovery of arrears of rent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury for the grant of interim injunction. It highlighted that all three principles must co-exist for the grant of interim injunction and referenced the case of Best Seller Retail (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. & Ors. to explain the concept of irreparable injury.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside. The trial court was directed to reconsider the application for interim relief afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the defendant-petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
1. Petitioners herein have filed instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India while seeking setting aside of orders dated 18.02.2020 and 12.03.2020 (for short impugned orders) passed by Principal District Judge, Anantnag (for short trial court).
2. Facts those emerge from perusal of the petition reveals that the petitioners herein on account of floods of 2014 shifted from the Office Complex of Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, to a private building of the respondent herein upon being taken on rent.
3. It is being stated that during the pendency of the case of the building of respondent herein taken on rent by the petitioners, before the Rent Assessment Committee, Anantnag, a civil suit came to be filed by the respondent herein for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1,00,97,767,50/- along with the interest @ 16% on the ground rent due from 01.11.2014 till February 2020 as also future rent.
4. It is being stated that in the application for interim relief accompanied with the said suit, trial court passed impugned order dated 18.02.2020 directing the parties to maintain status quo on spot with respect to the suit property.
5. It is being stated that during the pendency of the suit and application for interim relief, respondent herein filed an application on 12.03.2020 before the trial court seeking a direction that the defendant-petitioners herein be directed to pay the balance amount of arrears of rent upto February 2020. The trial court is stated to have endorsed on the said application an order on 12.03.2020 as under:-
“Copy of application forwarded to non-applicant no. 2 for compliance by or before 23.03.2020”.
6. The above orders dated 18.02.2020 and 12.03.2020 impugned in the instant petition are being challenged inter alia amongst others on the grounds that the same have been passed against law and facts inasmuch as are contrary to the provisions of law and that the reliefs granted in terms of impugned order could not have been granted in favour of the respondent and that the impugned orders have caused grave and serious prejudice, loss and injury to the petitioners and that impugned orders have been passed while adopting an alien procedure and that the impugned orders have been passed in the application for interim relief accompanying the suit being not maintainable owing to non-issuance of notice under section 80 CPC and that impugned orders as well as the proceedings conducted by the trial court are contrary to the provisions of law so on and so forth.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Perusal of the record reveals that the respondent herein has filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent seeking following reliefs:
1. A decree for Rs. 10097767/- with interest @ 16% as rent dues from 01.11.2014 till February 2020 and future rent in favour of plaintiff.
2. A decree/order for payment of future rent dues be also passed against the defendants in favour of plaintiff.
3. Costs of the suit be awarded against defendants and, in favour of plaintiff.
4. Any other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be also issued in favour of plaintiff, against defendants.
9. Perusal of the application for interim relief accompanying the suit would reveal that the plaintiff-respondent herein prayed that till final disposal of the main suit the moveable property in the office of defendant no. 2 (in the demised premises) in the shape of office files, documents, furniture etc. be attached and also the defendants/non-applicants be directed not to shift their office to some other areas from the demised premises at Khanabal belonging to applicant/plaintiff till final disposal of the main suit.
10. The moot point that emerges for consideration of this Court would be as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court could have passed the impugned orders in a suit seeking recovery of arrears of rent.
11. Law is set
