Requirement placed by landlord held not bonafide by Court.

C.R.P.Nos.651 to 653 of 1994: These three revisions arise out of applications filed by the respondent in each of these revision petitions for injunction pending suits filed by them respectively. The prayer in each suit is for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property except under the due process of law. The trial court granted injunction which has been confirmed by the appellate court. The aggrieved defendant in each suit has preferred these petitions.

2. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is the owner of the property. As it is a temple, the property is being leased out by public auction every year. In the auction held in 1988 the respondent in each of these revisions became the successful bidder and it was leased out for one year from 7. 1988 to 30.6.1989. In the auction held for the next two faslis, the respondents were again the successful bidders and the property was once again leased to them. In the auction held in 1991, the respondents did not take part. Some other party became the highest bidder. But, the respondents filed the present suits seeking injunction on the footing that they continued to be in possession without surrendering the same to the temple. It is also their case that there was no aucution the years 1989 and 1990. The applications for interim injunction during the pendency of the suits have been contested by the petitioners. They have produced the relevant registers to show that there was auction in 1989 as well as in 1990. It also produced the lease document entered into between the petitioner and the respondents which is marked as Ex.B-5. According to the petitioner, every year as soon as the harvest is over in the Tamil month of Masi, corresponding to February- March, the respondents will surrender possession to the temple and thus the temple was in possession when the auction was held in 1991 and the suit was filed. Both the courts have proceeded on the footing that there is no evidence of actual surrender of possession, and therefore, the respondents must be deemed to have been in possession on the date of suit. Consequently, injunction has been granted as prayed for.

3. The courts below have committed a fundamental error in taking the view that the respondents are entitled to continue in possession even after the expiry of the periods for which leases had been given to them. As it is a property belonging to the temple, the leases are expressly limited for a period of one year and it was only subject to that condition the respondents took part in the auction. Having taken part in the auction continuously for three years viz-, 1988, 1989 and 1990, if the respondents did not choose to participate in the auction in 1991 and allow somebody else to become the highest bidder, it is not open to the respondents to contend that they are entitled to be in possession and that they have not surrendered possession actually and on that basis pray for injunction. In fact, the successful auction bidders in the year 1991 have not been impleaded as parties to the suit.

4. When admittedly the petitioner is the owner of the property, the respondents cannot get an order of injunction unless they prove their right to be in possession. Even if they are in possession, if it is not a lawful possession, they are not entitled to get injunction as against the true owner. In this case, as per the terms of the auction, the respondents were bound to give up possession and they had been doing it in the previous faslis. The courts below ought to have drawn necessary inference therefrom that every successful auction bidder is bound and used to surrender possession after the harvest as contended by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the respondents are not entitled to have the relief of injunction, which is an equitable remedy particularly when they have no right to be in possession. Hence, the orders