IMPORTANT POINT
Injunction cannot be claimed to perpetuate unauthorised possession by invoking equitable jurisdiction of Civil Court.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner invokes supervisory jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 227 Constitution of India to quash an order dated 8th December, 2023, passed by Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Baramulla [“the Appellate Court”] in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal titled “Ab. Gafar Parray Vs. Mohammed Maqbool Sofi.”

2. Briefly put the facts pleaded by the petitioner are that the petitioner [hereinafter referred to be as “plaintiff” for convenience] filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent [hereinafter referred to be as “defendant” for convenience] seeking to restrain the defendant from causing any interference or dispossessing the plaintiff from the land measuring 1 Kanal situate at Gulmarg Road Chichilora Baramulla [“the suit land”]. In the plaint filed before the Court of learned Munsiff, Tangmarg, [“the Trial Court”], it is averred that plaintiff took on rent the suit land from the defendant in the year 2017 for a period of five years through a registered lease deed executed in the year 2017. The plaintiff started his business of Automobile Motor Garage under the name and style of M/s Auto Best Motor Garages/Maks Garage. It is alleged that though the registered lease deed was subsisting and the plaintiff was in possession, the defendant through unscrupulous elements started sending threats to the plaintiff for dispossessing him from the suit property.

3. It is further averred that in the month of November, 2021, an unknown person came to the plaintiff at his workshop and handed over a copy of the eviction notice. Apprehending that the defendant may take law in his own hands and forcibly throw the plaintiff out of possession, the petitioner filed the suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction before the Trial Court. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing a written statement. It is averred by the defendant in the written statement that the period of the lease granted to the plaintiff has expired on 31st December, 2022, and, therefore, the plaintiff has no right, title or interest to continue in possession. It is also averred that after the expiry of the lease period the plaintiff wilfully surrendered the possession of the suit property to the defendant.

4. The star defence that was taken by the defendant in the written statement is that on the expiry of the period of lease the plaintiff became tenant at sufferance and, therefore, lost right to continue in possession of the leased property. The defendant has taken this plea notwithstanding his positive case set up in the written statement that after the expiry of the lease the defendant voluntarily handed over the possession of the suit property to him.

5. On the defendant filing of his written statement and opposing the application of the plaintiff for interim relief, the matter was considered by the Trial Court, who vide its order dated 19th July, 2023, passed the following order:—

“Defendant is hereby restrained from causing any sought of interference with the possession of plaintiff with respect to the suit land till final disposal of the case, otherwise than by due process of law”

6. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant filed an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court after hearing both the sides and having gone through the pleadings of the parties and material on record, came to the conclusion that after the expiry of the period of lease the status of the plaintiff was only that of a tenant at sufferance and, therefore, he was not entitled to file a suit for an injunction against the true owner. The Appellate Court vide order impugned dated 8th December, 2023, allowed the appeal and vacated the interim order of stay granted by the Trial Court. It is this order of the Appellate Court which is called in question before me in this petition.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record, it would be appropriate to recollect the scope of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 22