AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subrata Talukdar, J
The petitioner is the Power of Attorney (POA) holder and has preferred this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for an ad interim order of injunction restraining the Opposite Party No. 1(OP No. 1)/the Bank from alienating the suit property.
The petitioner holds the POA on behalf of his father, who is a senior citizen aged 88 years and, under treatment at present for Cancer. The suit property belongs to the father and measures approximately 6000 sq. ft. which the OP No. 1/the Bank is presently using for banking operations.
The relationship between the parties is governed by a Deed of Lease, which was initially for a period of 9 years commencing 2001 and thereafter renewed for a further period of 9 years commencing 2010. The renewed Deed of Lease expired in 2019.
It would be relevant to note that the OP No. 1/the Bank has not invoked any condition in the Deed of Lease seeking further renewal. To the contrary, the petitioner apprehends that the OP No. 1/the Bank may alienate the suit property in favour of the private parties namely, OP Nos. 2 and 3 without even completely liquidating the arrear rents in favour of the landlord.
Accordingly, the petitioner acting as the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 1578 of 2019 which is presently pending before the Learned 3rd Civil Judge, Junior Division (for short the 3rd CJJD), Howrah. The suit was filed in December, 2019 for Declaration, Injunction and Recovery of Khas Possession.
The petitioner points out that in the event the OP No. 1/the Bank alienates the suit property in favour of the OP Nos. 2 and 3 without clearing the arrear rents, the petitioner shall suffer grave prejudice. The arrear rents claimed to be due by the petitioner relate from the year 2016.
The petitioner reasonably apprehends that the O.P. No. 1/the Bank, taking advantage of the present lockdown period, may exit the suit premises without liquidating the arrear rents and also alienate the suit premises in favour of the OP Nos. 2 and 3. Accordingly, an order of ad interim injunction restraining the OP No. 1/the Bank from doing so is sought.
Heard.
Considered the materials placed.
This Court does not have the benefit of a service by the petitioner on the OP No.1/the Bank. Neither it has the benefit of a complete service upon the other Ops. As a defence on the point of service, Learned Counsel for the petitioner pleads the absence of a caveat.
This Court must be acutely conscious of the legal position that an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India relates to the power of superintendence of the Hon'ble Court over inferior Courts, Tribunals and so on. Such power of superintendence cannot be exercised supplanting the powers of the original Court to grant or refuse an injunction.
In this case admittedly, the application for injunction filed by the petitioner as plaintiff is pending before the Learned 3rd CJJD, Howrah, which is the original Court competent to exercise jurisdiction with regard to the prayer for injunction.
This Court must therefore opine that simply citing the exigencies of a lockdown, a prayer for ad interim injunction in an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India supplanting the powers of the Learned Trial Court to consider such prayer at the first instance may be far from an admissible exercise.
It is also noticed that the petitioner has claimed arrears of money on and from 2016. However, despite such claim this Court is unable to gather from the present records, any formal claim put in by the petitioner with the OP No. 1/ the Bank to claim arrears of rent.
In such view of the matter, this Court finds that the prayer for ad interim injunction made by the petitioner restraining the OP No. 1/the Bank from exiting the suit premises without clearing the arrears of rent appears to be circumlocutory.
However, at the same time this Court finds that the petitioner filed the suit before the Learned Trial Court as early as in December, 2019, i.e. soon after expiry of the Deed of Lease. The Learned Trial Court directed filing of a written objection to the injunction application and fixed the next date on the 17th of February, 2020. Interestingly, the OP Nos. 2 and 3 appeared on the 17th of February, 2020 before the Learned Trial Court and, the petitioner pleads, sought an accommodation.
The next date was therefore fixed by the Learned Trial Court on the 18th of March, 2020. In view of the lockdown conditions in force, the Learned Trial Court has now decided to hear the matter on the 14th of May, 2020.
In the above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the parties be given an opportunity to address their concerns on merits before the Learned Trial Court.
This Court is also of the considered view that the Learned Trial Court be granted the room to hear the injunction application without the parties altering their present position.
Accordingly, this Court permits the learned Trial Court to hear out the injunction application on the next convenient date through video-conferencing or, any other method as being applied in the district courts apropo the present exigencies or, thereafter.
It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the prayer for injunction, which is entirely left to be judged by the Learned 3rd CJJD, Howrah.
However, in furtherance of and to preserve the level playing ground till the matter is heard by the learned Trial Court, the parties are directed to maintain the present status quo qua the suit premises. Exemption to file the Court Fees and to complete the other formalities stands extended, as prayed for by the petitioner.
The petitioner shall communicate this order to all the opposite parties and furnish proof of such communication to the Learned Trial Court on the next date.
Both C.O. 1113 of 2020 and CAN 3007 of 2020 stand thus disposed of.
A copy of this order will be available on the official website of this Court.