Possession rights of tenants are protected by law, requiring due process for eviction regardless of ownership claims.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 26.09.2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Civil Appeal No.55 of 2021 filed by respondent, whereby his temporary injunction application was allowed.

2. Facts of the case, shorn off unnecessary details, are as follows:

In the year 1995, respondent was inducted as tenant in respect of a shop, by its owner Shri Chandi Prasad. After death of Chandi Prasad, his son Vinod Prakash became owner of the shop and a fresh lease deed was executed between him and the respondent. Now, the shop is transferred by Vinod Prakash in favour of Tejendra Singh and Sukhjeet Singh.

Apprehending his forcible dispossession from the said shop, respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction, in which he filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. Learned trial Court rejected his temporary injunction application, however, the Appeal filed by respondent under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) C.P.C. was allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment rendered by learned Appellate Court, landlords have filed this writ petition.

3. Learned Appellate Court has considered and discussed all relevant aspects in great detail and has given valid reasons for upsetting trial Court’s finding on prima facie case. This Court concurs with the view taken by learned Appellate Court.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the judgment rendered by Appellate Court is unsustainable, as it is contrary to the settled legal position that no injunction can be granted against true owner of the property. The said submission is without any force.

5. Although, it is settled position in law that injunction cannot be granted against true owner of the property, however, it is equally well settled in our jurisprudence governed by rule of law that even an unauthorized occupant can be ejected from a property only in the manner provided by law.

6. In the present case, upon landlords’ refusal to accept rent, respondent started depositing rent in Court under Section 30 (1) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972”). Merely because the order passed under Section 30 (1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was set aside on technical ground by the Revisional Court vide judgment dated 09.05.2017, will not entitle the landlords to forcibly evict the tenant.

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lallu Yeshwant Singh Vs. Rao Jagdish Singh , reported in AIR 1968 SC 620, has cited with approval the following observation made by Bombay High Court in the case of K.K. Verma Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1954 Bombay 358, “Under the Indian law the possession of a tenant who has ceased to be a tenant is protected by law. Although he may not have a right to continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy his possession is juridical and that possession is protected by statute. Under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, a tenant, who has ceased to be a tenant, may sue for possession against his landlord if the landlord deprives him of possession otherwise than in due course of law, but a trespasser who has been thrown out of possession cannot go to court under Section 9 and claim possession against the true owner”.

8. Similarly, in the case of Midapur Zamindary Company Ltd. Vs. Kumar Naresh Narayan Roy , reported in AIR 1924 PC 144, the Privy Council held that in India persons are not permitted to take forcible possession. They must obtain such possession as they are entitled to by proper course.

9. Hon’ble Supreme Co