Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 181 (MAD)

I. N. Sardar v. S. V. S. Veeraragavan & Another

2005-02-03

PRABHA SRIDEVAN

body2005
Judgment :- (Prayer: Revision filed against the fair judgement and decree made in C.M.A.No.20 of 2002 dated 23.06.2004 by the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, setting aside the fair order and executable order passed in I.A.No.1043 of 2001 in O.S.No.891 of 2001 dated 19.02.2002 by the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai Town.) The revision has been filed against the order passed in C.M.A.No.20 of 2002, allowing the appeal filed by the respondents/landlord against the grant of interim injunction in I.A.No.1043 of 2001 in O.S.No.891 of 2001 filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction, restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession as tenant, except by due process of law. 2. The trial Court, as stated earlier, granted interim injunction. The Appellate Court reversed it on the ground that the petitioner had changed the user and had breached the conditions, subject to which the lease was granted and therefore, was not entitled to protection of his possession. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is admittedly in possession of the property. The Court below ought to have seen that the possession is not disturbed pending disposal of the suit filed by the petitioner and that the ground of different user may give rise to a cause of action in the proceedings for eviction, but not for dismissal of the order of interim injunction. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the interim injunction being an equitable remedy, a person, who had suppressed the material facts and had not come to Court with clean hands cannot be granted the relief of temporary injunction. The learned counsel further submitted that the question of balance of convenience and hardship are all in favour of the respondents and not the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the respondents have already filed R.C.No.218 of 2002 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai for eviction. It appears that there are other proceedings pending between the parties, one as R.C.O.P.No.261 of 2001 for fixation of fair rent and another as O.S.No.817 of 2001 filed by the respondents for restraining the petitioner from sub-letting the premises. 5. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a tenant in the petition premises. His prayer in the suit is that his dispossession should only be in accordance with law. 5. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a tenant in the petition premises. His prayer in the suit is that his dispossession should only be in accordance with law. It is admitted by the respondents that R.C.O.P.No.218 of 2002 has been filed for eviction. The respondents are entitled to get back possession if an when the petition for eviction is ordered in the Forum constituted under the Rent Control Act. The respondents having filed R.C.O.P.No.218 of 2002 will have to take possession in accordance with law. The Court below erred in vacating the interim injunction on grounds which are available for a landlord under the Rent Control Act to proceed for eviction. The petitioner being a tenant is entitled for protection of his possession and is entitled to interim injunction from interference by the respondents, except by due process of law. This would clearly mean that the respondents in the event of success in the RCOP is entitled to take possession. 6. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the judgement and decree made in C.M.A.No.20 of 2002 dated 23.06.2004 has to be necessarily set aside and is accordingly set aside. In the result, the CRP is allowed.