Shanti Devi & Ors. vs Aalendra Singh

Vivek Bharti Sharma, J

This appeal from order is filed against the order and formal decree dated 26.10.2024 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tehri Garhwal in Original Suit No.29/2024, whereby the trial court allowed the application moved by the respondent/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. and directed the appellants/defendants not to interfere in the tenancy of respondent/plaintiff without adopting due process of law nor execute the rent deed in favour of a third party by evicting the respondent/plaintiff during the pendency of suit.

Factual matrix of the case is that respondent/plaintiff filed the O.S. No.29/2024 against the appellants/defendants for a decree of permanent injunction with the averments that he is the tenant of the appellants/defendants in respect of suit property i.e. “Vallena Shri Hotels” comprising of 16 rooms and terrace café; that, in respect of suit property a rent agreement dated 25.09.2021 was executed between the/parties, according to which the rent was decided as Rs. 1,80,000/- per month; that, initially the tenancy was for a period of one year, however, thereafter another rent agreement dated 10.10.2023 was executed for a period of 36 months; that, thereafter some dispute arose between the parties in respect of some civil work to be executed in the suit property; that, on 12.08.2024 the appellants/defendants and his agents threatened the respondent/plaintiff to vacate the suit property by 15.08.2024 failing which possession of the suit property would be taken forcibly.

Along with the suit, the respondent/plaintiff also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC; that, the trial court, by order dated 13.08.2024, granted ex-parte temporary injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff; that, the appellants/defendants filed application under Order 39 Rule 3 of CPC for vacating the ex-parte temporary injunction; that, the trial court, vide order dated 23.09.2024, allowed the application moved under Order 39 Rule 3 of CPC and vacated the ex-parte temporary injunction and directed the appellants/defendants to file objection against the temporary injunction application; that, the appellants/defendants filed their objections against the temporary injunction application; that, the trial court, after hearing the parties, vide impugned order dated 26.10.2024, granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, hence, this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants would submit that in para-5 of the objections filed by the appellants /defendants against the temporary injunction application, the appellants /defendants had specifically stated that the respondent/plaintiff has not paid the rent regularly; that, as per the lease agreement executed between the appellants/defendants and the respondent/plaintiff if the respondent/plaintiff would not pay the rent regularly then the lease agreement would come to an end automatically.

He would further submit that the trial court has erred in law in granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff notwithstanding the fact that the respondent/plaintiff did not establish the three conditions necessary for grant of temporary injunction viz. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.

Besides, the trial court further erred in law in granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff which was in the shape of granting the final/permanent relief.

A perusal of the objection (Annexure-7) filed by the appellants/defendants would reveal that in the objections the appellants/defendants have nowhere stated the period for which the rent was not paid or from which date the respondent/plaintiff is in arrears of rent. However, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff both would fairly admit that the since March 2024 rent has not been paid.

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants would submit that without prejudice to the grounds and defence raised in the trial court and if the respondent/plaintiff agrees to pay arrears of rent and the monthly rent as well as the electricity charges then the dispute between the parties can be decided in the trial court itself.

Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff would submit that at least one month time may be given to the respondent/plaintiff to pay the arrears of rent and the electricity and other charges as per the rent agreements dated 25.09.2021 and/or 10.10.2023.

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and with their consent, this appeal is disposed of with direction that the respondent/plaintiff shall pay the arrears of rent i.e. from March, 2024 to till date as well as the electricity charges, as per the rent agreements dated 25.09.2021 and/or 10.10.2023 and shall also continue to pay the monthly rent.

Subject to the above, present appeal is disposed of.