IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Eviction of tenant – The moment landlord files counter-claim seeking ejectment preceded by statutory notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, very foundation of tenant’s suit for injunction alleging unlawful dispossession collapses.
(2) Counter-claim – In a suit for permanent injunction instituted by tenant, wherein relationship of landlord and tenant is either admitted or otherwise established through pleadings or evidence, landlord is not precluded from asserting his right to seek recovery of possession by way of a counter-claim.

JUDGMENT (C.A.V.)

The captioned first appeal is filed by the tenant assailing the order passed in ejectment suit.

2. The present appellant filed a suit for injunction simplicitor in O.S.6726/2024 by specifically alleging that he is a tenant under the respondents and the respondents have let out the suit schedule property under lease deed dated 1.3.2013. Appellant further alleged that respondents despite aware of the fact that his son is studying in 9th Standard in Bishop Cotton Boys School, are high handedly demanding the appellant to vacate the premises on or before 30.9.2024.

3. On receipt of summons, respondents filed written statement and by way of counter claim sought for ejectment. Appellant as a defendant filed written statement to the counter claim admitting jural relationship and also the quit notice issued by respondent No.1 on 1.10.2024.

4. Trial Court based on rival pleadings formulated the following issues:

“1) Whether the tenancy of the plaintiff over the suit schedule premises is determined by efflux of time?

2) Whether the tenancy of the plaintiff over the suit schedule premises is terminated by defendant No.1 through the quit notice dated 01.10.2024?

3) Whether in a suit for a bare injunction filed by the plaintiff, defendant is entitled to seek the relief of ejectment of the plaintiff/tenant by filing a counter claim?

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction sought in the suit?

5) Whether the defendant is entitled for the relief of ejectment of the plaintiff sought in the counter claim?

6) What order or decree?”

5. The trial Court answered issue No.2 in the affirmative holding that the tenancy is terminated by respondent No.1 through quit notice dated 1.10.2024. While answering issue No.3 in the affirmative, trial Court held that in a bare suit for injunction filed by appellant/tenant, respondents/landlords are entitled to seek relief of ejectment by filing a counter claim. Accordingly, appellant’s suit for injunction is dismissed and respondent’s counter claim for ejectment is decreed.

6. In the present appeal, appellant has challenged the decree rendered on counter claim and there is no challenge to the decree passed in injunction suit wherein the appellant’s suit seeking relief of injunction is dismissed.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents.

8. The following points would arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the trial Court was justified in proceeding to pass a decree for ejectment without permitting the appellant to lead evidence, and if so, whether such procedure suffers from any legal infirmity vitiating the decree?

(ii) Whether a counter-claim seeking the relief of ejectment is maintainable at the instance of the landlord in a suit instituted by the tenant seeking a decree of permanent injunction simplicitor?

Finding on Point No. (i):

9. The appellant instituted the suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the respondents, asserting that the respondents/landlords were making unlawful attempts to dispossess him from the suit premises without recourse to the due process of law. However, a detailed scrutiny of the pleadings and the judgment of the trial Court discloses that the appellant has categorically admitted material facts which go to the root of the dispute. Specifically, the appellant has unequivocally admitted the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the expiry of the lease on 28.02.2014, and receipt of the statutory notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy. These foundational admissions made by the appellant clearly establish that the tenancy had come to an end in accordance with law.

10. In light of these admitted facts, the trial Court was fully justified in shifting the focus from the issue of alleged unlawful dispossession to the larger question of whether the appellant had any lawful right to continue in