Sri Venkatesh Babu vs. M/S Brigade Hotel Private Limited

Held

The High Court held that for an order of temporary injunction to be granted, the plaintiff must be in possession of the premises on the date of the suit. The Court found that the materials placed before it were sufficient to doubt the appellant's possession. The Court perused the impugned order and the materials, concluding that the appellant had surrendered possession of the premises much before the filing of the suit. The finding of the trial court in this regard was deemed not to suffer from any infirmity. The Court also noted the dishonor of rent cheques issued by the appellant, indicating his fault as a tenant and his facing criminal action. Despite the appellant's attempts to prove possession through various documents, the Court found they did not prima facie establish possession in view of the letter of surrender produced by the defendants. Therefore, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the trial court's order, which demonstrated a proper exercise of discretion. The appeals were dismissed.

Facts

The appellant, Sri. Venkatesh Babu, proprietor of M/s. Vigneshwara Enterprises, filed three suits for permanent injunction against his landlords, M/s Brigade Hotel Private Limited, M/s Bangalore Investment, and M/s Garden City Construction. He claimed the landlords interfered with his possession of tenanted premises where he ran a bar and restaurant. The appellant stated he stopped business due to a Supreme Court order and alleged interference when cleaning the premises and attempts at illegal trespass. The landlords contended the appellant's rent cheques had dishonored, he violated lease terms by running a live band show, and had surrendered possession before the suits were filed. The trial court rejected the appellant's applications for temporary injunction in all three suits, finding he was not in possession on the date of filing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellant was in possession of the tenanted premises on the date of filing the suits, which is a prerequisite for granting an order of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC? The appellant argued that he was in possession, attempting to establish this through bank statements, GST certificates, photographs, and electricity bills. He contended that the trial court erred in rejecting his application for temporary injunction. The respondents (landlords) argued that the appellant had surrendered possession of the premises prior to the filing of the suits, evidenced by a letter of surrender, and that his rent cheques had dishonored, indicating he was at fault and facing criminal action. They contended the trial court correctly exercised its discretion by finding the appellant was not in possession.