Metro Marins & Anr Vs.
Bonus Watch Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors  Insc 535 (10 September 2004)
N. Santosh Hegde, S.B.
Sinha & A.K. Mathur (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 1610 of 2004) Santosh Hegde,
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
Appellant herein questions the correctness of an order made by the Appellate
Bench of the High Court at Calcutta which by the impugned order set aside the
order made by a learned Single Judge on the original civil jurisdiction of that
court in G.A. No. 682 of 1999 in C.S. No. 99 of 1999.
Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows :- The
respondent herein filed a suit for possession alleging the appellant herein to
be a licensee and the period of license having expired he was entitled to a
decree for khas possession of the suit schedule property as also for certain
other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit he filed an interlocutory
application, firstly praying for a judgment on admission and in the alternative
for an injunction directing the appellant herein to immediately hand over
vacant and peaceful possession of the suit schedule property premises to the
respondent-plaintiff. The learned Single Judge who heard the said application
came to the conclusion that he did not find any reason to pass a decree on
admission or to grant interim mandatory injunction directing the
appellant-defendant to hand over possession of the flat in view of the fact
that the suit was still pending in the court and granting of such relief would
tantamount to a decree before trial for which the respondent has not made out a
It is against the said dismissal of the plaintiff's application, an appeal
was filed confining the appeal only to the reliefs by way of injunction seeking
interim possession of the suit schedule property during the pendency of the
suit. The Appellate Bench after noticing the arguments of the parties and the
documents produced came to the conclusion that prima- facie the relationship
between the parties was that of licensee and licensor.
It also came to the conclusion at one point of time in 1998 the appellants
were willing to voluntarily surrender the possession but did not do so because
the respondent did not agree to repay the security amount. It also came to the
conclusion that for about 4 years the property in question has been under a
Caretaker and the said property was not used for any commercial purpose. In the
said background, the appellate court came to the conclusion that it is not
proper that the property (Flat) should be kept in a disused condition. The
appellate bench also considered the litigation to be a luxury litigation and on
this philosophical background it directed the receiver who was earlier
appointed as an interim receiver to take inventory of the movable in the
property to take symbolic possession of the suit property and put the
respondent-plaintiff in possession of the property under the authority of that
receiver subject to final adjudication in the original suit.
It is the above mandatory interim order of directing the interim possession
being handed over to the plaintiffs in a suit for possession, the appellants
are before us.
Shri Jaydeep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants
submitted that it is an admitted fact that the appellants were in possession of
the suit property and the suit itself was for eviction and for possession. He
contended that there was a triable issue as to the nature of possession hence a
decision to hand over possession or not could have been taken only after deciding
this issue and on the basis of law applicable to such relationship. Learned
counsel pointed out that Trial Court has for good reasons rejected the interim
application of the plaintiff holding that allowing such application would
amount to grant of a decree even before trial which normally is not permissible
in law. He submitted there is no extraordinary circumstances on facts of the
present case which could have permitted the Appellate Court to exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction of granting the interim possession in favour of the
plaintiff in a suit for possession. He placed reliance on a judgment of this
Court in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden vs. Coomi Sorab Warden 1990 (2) SCC
117 wherein this Court held :- "The Relief of interlocutory mandatory
injunctions are granted generally to preserve or restore the status- quo of the
last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the
final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those
acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was
wrongfully taken from the party complaining. But since the granting of such an
injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the
trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom
it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or
would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm".
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the present case, it
is an admitted fact that the appellant is in possession of the property and the
suit itself is for eviction and possession and there is a contested issue in
regard to the nature of relationship between the parties. In such a situation
issuance of mandatory injunction directing the handing over the possession in
favour of the plaintiff would be unsustainable in law and is contrary to the
law laid down by this Court in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden vs. Coomi Sorab
Warden (supra). Learned counsel also pointed out that the fact that the
property in question is not used for commercial purposes or is in the
possession of a Caretaker are irrelevant facts for the purpose of deciding
whether an interim mandatory injunction to hand over possession should be granted
Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that this appeal is liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage
itself since from the document produced by the appellant himself, it is clear
that in 1998 he was ready and willing to hand over possession of the property
and he has backed out from the same, hence in equity the appellant is not
entitled for any relief and Article 136 which being a discretionary
jurisdiction of this Court. On merits the learned counsel submitted that as
found by the Appellate Court it is ex-facie clear that the relationship between
the parties is of that licensor or licensee and period of the license having
come to an end the appellant continued to be in possession as trespasser.
Therefore, the High Court was justified in granting the mandatory injunction to
hand over possession of the property. He submitted that the appellant has not
paid any rent for the last so many years which is also a good ground for
rejection of this appeal i.e. assuming he is a tenant, he could not continue to
be in possession of the property without paying any rent.
Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the documents produced, we are satisfied that the impugned order
of the Appellate Court cannot be sustained either on facts or in law. As
noticed by this Court in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden vs.
Coomi Sorab Warden (supra) has held that an interim mandatory injunction can
be granted only in exceptional cases coming within the exceptions noticed in
the said judgment. In our opinion, the case of the respondent herein does not
come under anyone of those exceptions and even on facts it is not such a case
which calls for the issuance of an interim mandatory injunction directing the
possession being handed over to the respondent. As observed by the learned
Single Judge the issue whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession is yet
to be decided in the Trial Court and granting of any interim order directing
handing over of a possession would only mean decreeing the suit even before
trial. Once the possession of the appellant either directly or through his
agent (caretaker) is admitted then the fact that the appellant is not using the
said property for commercial purpose or not using the same for any beneficial
purpose or the appellant has to pay huge amount by way of damages in the event
of he loosing the case or the fact that the litigation between the parties is a
luxury litigation are all facts which are irrelevant for changing the
status-quo in regard to possession during the pendency of the suit.
For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion the Appellate
Court erred in reversing the order of the learned Single Judge and granting a
mandatory order of injunction. In view of our above findings, we think it
appropriate that even the appointment of a receiver be it an interim order or
otherwise to supervise the possession of the property in question is also
unnecessary, hence said appointment of receiver is also set aside.
For the reasons stated above this appeal succeeds and the same is allowed.
The order in appeal is set aside and that of the trial court restored.