Bikram Singh Dhiman vs. Jasbir Kukreja And Another

Held

The Court held that the applicant/plaintiff had not made out a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction. It found that the plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands, citing suppression of material facts, specifically the non-disclosure of arrears of rent and failure to deposit security amounts. The Court observed that the plaintiff was in arrears of rent and had breached the terms of the lease agreement. The Court also concluded that the balance of convenience was against the applicant/plaintiff, as continued injunction would prejudice the ownership and commercial rights of the defendants, who were suffering continuous losses due to non-payment of rent. The Court was persuaded by the evidence, including the extract of the Day Book, suggesting that the plaintiff himself handed over possession of the suit property to the defendants on June 10, 2026. The Court relied on precedents like Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd., S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu, Prestige Lights Ltd., K.D. Sharma, and Kishore Samrite to emphasize that a party seeking equity must do equity, disclose all material facts, and that suppression of facts disentitles a party to discretionary equitable relief. Consequently, the interim order dated May 6, 2026, was vacated, and the application was dismissed.

Facts

The applicant, Bikram Singh Dhiman, filed a suit for declaration, injunction, and damages against Jasbir Kukreja and another. The suit concerned a hotel property leased by the defendant to the plaintiff on July 30, 2025, for a term of three years commencing August 1, 2025, with a monthly rent of Rs. 1,66,667/-. The plaintiff sought to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession and management of the hotel and to recover possession of two rooms and certain hotel records allegedly illegally detained by the defendants. The plaintiff claimed to have spent significantly on the hotel's operation and maintenance, incurring losses due to the defendants' alleged interference. The defendants, in their reply, sought dismissal of the application, alleging suppression of material facts by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had not approached the court with clean hands. They also claimed that the plaintiff himself handed over possession of the suit property on June 10, 2026, and had suffered substantial monetary losses.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant/plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction restraining the non-applicants/defendants from interfering with the possession and management of the suit property, as contemplated under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC? 2. Whether the applicant/plaintiff has approached the Court with clean hands, warranting equitable relief? 3. Whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant/plaintiff or the non-applicants/defendants? Arguments for the Applicant/Plaintiff: The applicant argued that he was in peaceful possession and management of the hotel under a valid lease agreement and that the defendants were unlawfully interfering with its functioning, causing financial losses. He sought to maintain the status quo through an interim injunction. He also sought the return of hotel records and vacant possession of two rooms occupied by the defendants. Arguments for the Non-applicants/Defendants: The defendants contended that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts and had not approached the Court with clean hands, disentitling him to equitable relief. They asserted that the plaintiff himself handed over possession of the suit property on June 10, 2026, and that the plaintiff had incurred significant losses, suggesting his inability to run the hotel. They argued that the balance of convenience was against the plaintiff and that vacating the interim order would prevent irreparable loss to them.