Back
2012(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 357
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijender Singh Malik
Civil Revision No. 6513 of 2011
K.H. Hotels Pvt. Limited
v.
Krishan Kumar & Ors.
{Decided on 23/12/2011}
Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.39--Mandatory Injunction--Grant of--Court has discretion to grant an injunction with the object of preventing the breach of an obligation as also to compel performance of the requisite acts--If there is a contract between the parties, which is either admitted or established, laying down an obligation on the part of one of the parties to the contract to do certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing, the court has got the discretionary power to grant such an injunction to prevent the breach of obligation and also to compel performance of the requisite acts. (Para 18)
Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.39--Mandatory Injunction--Enforcement of obligation under the admitted contract cannot be denied for dishonour of the cheque and proceedings under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act--Respondents/lessors directed to sign and execute such papers/documents/building plans for the renovation of the basement and ground floor of the SCO, with regard to which there is agreement between the parties in the lease. (Paras 24, 25, 27 & 28)
Petitioner sought enforcement of an obligation contained in lease agreement--Petitioner, who is running with a liability to pay Rs. 5,80,000/- per month as rent to the lessors, is prevented by them from bringing the premises to use by making the constructions and additions thereto--Petitioner seeking enforcement of an obligation arising from lease agreement and such an obligation can be enforced by the court by granting ad interim mandatory injunction--Enforcement of obligation under the admitted contract cannot be denied for dishonour of the cheque and proceedings under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act--Non payment of rent would, moreover, give rise to other remedies in favour of the lessors and this would not have a negative bearing on the relief sought by the petitioner of ad interim injunction of directing the lessors to sign and execute such papers/documents/building plans for the renovation of the basement and ground floor of the SCO, with regard to which there is agreement between the parties contained in the lease deed--No adverse impact to be there on the relief sought by the petitioner by way of ad interim mandatory injunction by the fact of petitioner’s filing the writ petition directing the Chandigarh Administration to consider the petitioner lessee as legal and valid applicant for the application for sanction of revised building plans--Respondents/lessors directed to sign and execute such papers/documents/building plans for the renovation of the basement and ground floor of the SCO, with regard to which there is agreement between the parties in the lease. (Paras 24, 25, 27 & 28)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.39, R.1 & 2--Injunction--Grant of--Parameters reiterated. (Para 13)
Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - K.H. Hotels Pvt. Limited, the defendant No.1 is in revision before me, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 15.6.2011 (Annexure P6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh as well as the order dated 30.9.2011 (Annexure P8) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh.
2. Krishan Kumar and others, the respondents have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, including their directors, managers, agents etc. from digging, raising construction, removing flooring, demolishing walls, damaging lintel or doing any other type of acts in the tenanted premises causing damage thereby to the same as also from violating the building bye-laws framed under the Capital of Punjab Development and Regulations Act (for short, “the Act”) as applicable to Union Territory of Chandigarh.
3. The defendant - K.H. Hotels Private Limited is a company registered under the Companies Act. It approached the plaintiffs to take on rent the premises of shop-cum-office (SCO) No. 17, Sector 26, Chandigarh (for short,”the leased premises”) for using the same as office and for purposes of trade contacts i.e., business and commercial purposes. After due negotiations, a registered lease deed dated 17.2.2010 came into being between the parties regarding the property for a period of 8 years, from 17.2.2010 to 31.3.2018. It was obligatory on the part of the defendants under the terms of the lease deed to abide by the terms and conditions of the lease deed as also the regulations framed under the Act. The leased premises had been constructed strictly in accordance with the plan as sanctioned by the concerned department of Chandigarh Administration. The defendants in utter violation of the terms and conditions of the lease deed started doing illegal and unlawful acts such as, digging out the back courtyard etc. The plaintiffs reside in Sangrur and they visit Chandigarh rarely. Taking advantage of their absence, the defendants started doing all this. On 7.3.2011, the plaintiffs found the premises to have been extensively damaged. The defendant was asked not to do so, but to no effect and therefore, the suit was brought.
4. Alongwith the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was brought seeking to restrain the defendants from doing the digging and construction work in the premises in question in contravention of the terms of the lease deed as well as the building byelaws framed under the Act.
5. The defendants resisted the suit as well as the application. They have also filed a counter claim seeking a decree for mandatory injunction directing the plaintiffs to sign and execute such papers/documents/building plans for the renovation of the basement and ground floor of the SCO, with regard to which there is agreement between the parties contained in the lease deed dated 17.2.2010. They have claimed that they were just making preparation for raising constructions for which they had prepared the plans and requested the plaintiffs to sign those plans so that they could be submitted before the concerned authorities for sanction. They have claimed that they have no intention to raise construction in violation of the terms of the lease deed or the building bye-laws framed under the Act. They have claimed that the plaintiffs have deliberately avoided signing the papers so that the defendants could be prevented from applying to the authorities for permission to raise the construction to make the leased property fit for use by the defendants for the purpose for which it was taken on lease. They had also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking ad interim mandatory injunction directing the plaintiffs to sign the papers, documents etc. required for renovation of the basement and ground floor of the leased premises to which the plaintiffs have agreed i
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
