Ms. Anjum Azeez vs. Mr. B. A. Rajaram

Held

The High Court held that the writ petition was devoid of merits and dismissed it. The Court found that the jural relationship of tenancy between the parties was not in dispute, and the petitioner herself had admitted the lease terms, including the monthly rent of Rs.2,75,000/- (inclusive of GST at Rs.3,86,000/-) with agreed enhancements. The petitioner's suit sought discretionary remedies, and a tenant seeking such protection must act fairly towards the landlord. The Court observed that the lower court had considered all aspects and exercised its discretion in accordance with reason and justice by granting temporary protection, subject to payment of arrears. The Court found the petitioner's contention that directing payment of arrears amounted to granting relief without a counter-claim difficult to accept, as it was a condition for a discretionary remedy. The Court noted that the lower court's order did not merit deeper examination under Article 227 of the Constitution. All contentions of the parties were kept open for trial.

Facts

The petitioner, Ms. Anjum Azeez, proprietrix of M/s. Emerald Ventures, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 23.10.2020 passed by the XXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.4297/2020. The impugned order, passed on I.A.No.2 (filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC), allowed the plaintiff's applications for temporary injunction and interim relief, subject to the petitioner paying entire rent arrears from March 2020 at the rate of Rs.3,86,000/- per month to the respondents (landlords) directly by 13.11.2020. Failure to comply would automatically vacate the order. The petitioner sought to quash this order, while the respondents defended it. The suit itself was for restraining the landlords from dispossessing the petitioner and disconnecting power supply.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 23.10.2020, which directs the petitioner to pay rental arrears as a condition for granting temporary injunction, is sustainable in law, particularly when no counter-claim has been filed by the respondents, and this amounts to granting interim relief without a formal claim for it? (Section 151 CPC, Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that directing payment of rental arrears amounts to granting relief to the respondents, akin to a decree, in the absence of a counter-claim and through an interim order. This, she argued, was difficult to countenance. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued in justification of the impugned order, asserting that the court below had examined all aspects of the matter in the right perspective. They contended that if the petitioner's argument were accepted, she would enjoy the property until the suit's determination to the detriment of the respondents, which is not a desirable outcome, especially when the tenancy and its terms are asserted by the petitioner herself.