Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2902 (ALL)

Aman Enterprises v. J. B. R. Buldcom Pvt. Ltd.

2015-09-15

HULUVADI G.RAMESH, SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT Huluvadi G. Ramesh and Shamsher Bahadur Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-tenants and learned counsel for the respondent-landlord. 2. This First Appeal From Order has been filed by the appellant-tenants against the order, dated 21st May, 2015 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut, rejecting the Application No. 8-Ga-2, in Original Suit No.172 of 2015, for interim injunction, claiming prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the appellant-tenants. 3. It appears that the appellant-tenant no.1, which is a registered firm, under the Companies Act and the appellant no.2, who is the partner of the said firm, took the second floor of the building in question on rental basis at the rate of Rs.1,85,000/- alongwith the service tax to be paid in addition on the monthly basis for which a lease-agreement has been entered into between the parties. A suit for permanent injunction, alongwith an application for interim injunction (8-Ga-2), has been filed by the Appellant-tenants on the allegations that the land-lord by adopting different harassing tactics such as locking the lift, closing the road by parking the Car in the way, cutting the electricity wire, stopping the electricity supply from generator and disconnecting water supply is trying to evict the appellant-tenants. The interim injunction has been sought restraining the defendant-landlords to interfer with the peaceful possession of the appellant-tenants and to restore the electricity and water supply. The Trial Court, considering the material produced by the parties came to the conclusion that the prima facie case and balance of convenience has not been made out in favour of the appellant-tenants, and as such rejected the application for interim injunction by the order dated 21.05.2015. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-tenants submitted that the Trial court has rejected the application for interim injunction without considering the allegation of the appellant-tenants that the land-lord-respondents by cutting the electricity cable and the disconnecting the water supply, though there exists a contract entered into between the appellant-tenants and the respondent-landlord. The landlord by adopting these harassing tactics is trying to evict the appellant-tenants, though there is a duly registered lease agreement entered into between the appellant-tenants and the respondent-landlord. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, taking serious objection to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-tenants, submitted that the appellant-tenants did not make deposit of the rental, under the agreement, since January, 2015. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, taking serious objection to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-tenants, submitted that the appellant-tenants did not make deposit of the rental, under the agreement, since January, 2015. The appellants defaulted in making the deposit of the rent. So far as disconnection electricity connection and water supply is concerned, since the appellant-tenants failed to deposit the dues, it is the department, which has disconnected the electricity supply and the water supply. Therefore, the Trial court has rightly refused to grant any interim relief holding that since the appellant-tenants defaulted in making the rental, no prima facie case balance of convenience is in their favour to grant interim injunction. 6. In this context, so far as the deposit of the rental is concerned, it is the appellant-tenants who have to satisfy the primary obligation to deposit the rental agreed to between the parties, by way of the lease-agreement, entered into between the tenant and the landlord. Only on such condition being satisfied by the appellant-tenants, by depositing the rental and other dues, the Trial court could have considered the case of the appellant-tenants for interim injunction and could have passed order to restore electricity connection and water supply, if the disconnection has at all taken place. 7. So far as the eviction of the appellant-tenants is concerned, it depends solely on the contract entered into between the appellant-tenants and the respondent-landlord. If the tenants defaulted in following the terms and conditions arrived at between the appellant and respondent-land-lord, then the land-lord has every right to get the eviction of the defaulter-tenant under the due process of law. 8. So far as the disconnection of the electricity connection and the water supply of the tenanted premises is concerned, on the dues being cleared and the arrears of rental being deposited, the grievance of the appellant shall be considered by the Trial court, after hearing the parties. 9. Let parties appear before the Trial court on the next date fixed and the Trial court shall pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, on deposit of arrears of rental and other dues within a month thereafter. 10. 9. Let parties appear before the Trial court on the next date fixed and the Trial court shall pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, on deposit of arrears of rental and other dues within a month thereafter. 10. After the order being passed, learned counsel for the appellant-tenants submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant-tenants are not interested in further contesting the case, rather they are interested in handng-over the possession of the premises in question. 11. In this of view of the matter, if the appellant-tenants are not interested in contesting the suit any further and are willing to handover the possession of the tenanted accommodation, they may make such request before the Trial court, by moving an appropriate application, but only after making the deposit of the arrears of rent and arrears of other dues, as has been agreed to between the parties, under the lease-agreement. 12. If any such application is being moved, the Trial court shall decide the same within a month from the date of its presentation, by passing an appropriate order, in accordance with law. 13. With these observations and directions, the Appeal stands disposed of.