An injunction cannot be granted against a true property owner when the tenant is in default of significant rent arrears.

JUDGMENT

This petition is filed by the petitioner by challenging Ext.P8 order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the District Court, Thrissur in CMA No.41 of 2025 by staying the order passed by the trial court in favour of the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) .

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent filed suit, OS No.330 of 2025 against the petitioner, not to evict the respondent without due process of law. It is submitted that previously the trial court passed an ad - interim injunction against the petitioner and later the same was modified and the petitioner being the defendant also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 of the CPC seeking permission of the trial court to use the room adjacent to the operator's room in the theater, which was leased out to the respondent by the vendor of the petitioner. The trial court by order dated 05.05.2025 permitted the petitioner/defendant to use item No.2 of the schedule property and also permitted to put up a signboard in the schedule item No.2 property. Thereafter, the said order was challenged before the vacation court ie., District Court, Thrissur, by filing CMA No.41 of 2025. The Vacation Court said to be passed an order staying the execution of the order dated 13.05.2025, the same is under challenge before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent was a defaulter of arrears of rent of more than Rs.3.30 Crores and without paying arrears of rent, he has filed suit and get injunction order against the petitioner who is the owner of the property. There was a lease agreement and as per the lease agreement the respondent has to pay rent for Rs.5 Lakhs per month and even if, a supplementary agreement that he has to pay Rs.4 Lakhs and then Rs.3 Lakhs per month but the arrears of rent not been paid. Hence, without paying the same he is enjoying the property which is a theater and the petitioner moved an application, obtained an injunction permission to use a room adjacent to the operator's room of the theater which was allowed by the trial court. But, the 1^st appellate court without appreciating the matter, a cryptic order has been passed, staying the order without considering the arrears of the rent payable to the respondent. Therefore, prayed for the order under challenge has to set aside.

5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent has also filed suit against the previous vendor and by virtue of ext.P1 sale deed, the petitioner become the owner of the property and he is ready to give bank guarantee for Rs.7 Crores for vacating the premises by the respondent. It is also contended that without paying arrears of rent using the property and enjoying injunction is not permissible and hence prayed for the reliefs.

6. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent has objected the petition by filing counter, contending that there is no arrears of rent as on today. The respondent already deposited the rent by filing a memo. Earlier 12 Lakhs has been deposited. Subsequently on three occasions, Rs.3 Lakh each has been deposited, totally 21 lakhs has been deposited as on May 2025. Therefore, there is no arrears of rent payable and the previous owner also filed a suit against the respondent for recovery of money which is also pending. Such being the case, there is no assignment of the tenancy obligations to the petitioner for r