Injunction - When the property is in a dilapidated condition and when it is not in use for the purpose of running a school for which it was let out. The manner in which the appellant came into possession looses relevance. Hence, without going into the merits of the rival contentions of the parties as to the abandonment, since the respondent - N.D.M.C. is no longer running the school, we deem it appropriate to set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the First Appellate Court. Taking note of the fact that the appellants are in possession of the property, the injunction as granted shall stand affirmed and the appellants would be entitled to retain the property without interference.
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1579 OF 2020
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1480 OF 2017)
AMRIT MEHTA & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.09.2016
passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Regular Second
Appeal No. 101 of 2012 in and by which the High Court has allowed
the Second Appeal thereby dismissing the suit filed by the
appellants for injunction against the respondent-North Delhi
Municipal Corporation, the above appeal is filed.
3. The respondent-NDMC has taken the suit property from its
erstwhile owner on rent and was running a school. The respondent
was the tenant in the suit property at monthly rent of Rs.97.96
from the earlier owner Satish Chandra Mathur.
4. The appellants claimed to be owners of the property having
purchased the same by the sale deed dated 17.04.1997. According to
the appellants, the respondent has shifted the school from the said
premises long ago and no longer running the school in the suit
premises. According to the appellants, since the respondent did not
require the premises and did not continue in possession, the
appellants came in possession of the property (which is disputed by
2
NDMC contending that the appellants have taken possession
forcefully). It is claimed by the appellants that the respondent
has failed to pay the rent from 01.05.1997 to 31.08.1997 and began
to interfere with the possession. After issuing legal notice to
the respondent - NDMC on 27.01.1998, the appellants have filed the
suit for permanent injunction restraining NDMC not to interfere
with their possession and for recovery of arrears of rent of
Rs.391.84. The respondent-N.D.M.C. appeared and contested the suit.
5. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
adduced by the parties, the Trial Court vide order dated 31.10.2011
partly decreed the suit and held that the appellants are entitled
to recovery of rent of Rs.391.84 only from the respondent. Insofar
as the prayer for relief of permanent injunction, the Trial Court
held that the appellants are not entitled for the relief of
permanent injunction as they were required to file the suit for
eviction.
6. Being aggrieved, the appellants had filed an appeal before the
First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court vide judgment
dated 16.02.2012 allowed the appeal filed by the appellants and
held that the appellants are entitled to the permanent injunction
also. The First Appellate Court held that the photographs of the
suit premises showed that the property was not in a good condition.
The First Appellate Court further held that they were in possession
of the premises since 1997. Referring to the evidence of PW-1, the
First Appellate Court held that the keys of the suit premises
available with the watchmen of the respondent were never handed
over to the appellants. On those findings, the First Appellate
3
Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and granted relief
of permanent injunction also in addition to the recovery of rent.
Being aggrieved, the respondent-N.D.M.C filed the Second Appeal
before the High Court which came to be allowed by the impugned
judgment.
7. The High Court held that merely because of the suit premises
are in dilapidated state and not used would not mean that the
tenancy of the suit premises would be abandoned.
8. The High Court further held that mere non user of the premises
would not amount to abandonment of the premises, inter alia, on
various findings, the High Court set aside the judgment of the
First Appellate Court and restored the judgment of the Trial Court
holding that the appellants are entitled only for recovery of Rs.
391.84 towards arrears of rent. Being aggrieved, the appellants
have preferred this appeal.
9. We have heard Mr. Ravinder Sethi, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as Mr. Ajay Bansal,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-N.D.M.C. and
perused the impugned judgment and materials on record.
10. There is no dispute that the respondent-N.D.M.C came in
possession as the tenant under the erstwhile owner Satish Chandra
Mathur long ago on the monthly rent of Rs.97.96. It is also not in
dispute that Satish Chandra Mathur had sold the property to the
appellants by Sale Deed dated 17.04.1997. The appellants state
that the tenancy of respondent-N.D.M.C was attorned by the previous
owner by its letter dated 01.05.1997, which is strongly disputed by
the learned counsel for the respondent-N.D.M.C.
4
11. Having regard to the photographs and other evidence
produced by the parties, the First Appellate Court rightly held
that the property is in a dilapidated condition and it cannot be
in dispute that it is not in use for the purpose for which it was
let out. The manner in which the appellant came into possession
looses relevance. Hence, without going into the merits of the rival
contentions of the parties as to the abandonment, since the
respondent - N.D.M.C. is no longer running the school, we deem it
appropriate to set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore
the judgment of the First Appellate Court. Taking note of the fact
that the appellants are in possession of the property, the
injunction as granted shall stand affirmed and the appellants would
be entitled to retain the property without interference. Insofar as
relief of decree for recovery of rent, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, we hold that the appellants shall not
seek to recover the amount ordered by the Trial Court nor shall
there be any monetary claim against each other.
12. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be
no order as to costs.
………………………………………………….J.
[R. BANUMATHI]
………………………………………………..J.
[S. ABDUL NAZEER]
NEW DELHI ………………………………………………...J.
13TH FEBRUARY, 2020 [A.S. BOPANNA]
5
ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 1480/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-09-2016
in RSA No. 101/2012 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)
AMRIT MEHTA & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Respondent(s)
Date : 13-02-2020 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ravinder Sethi,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Puneet Sharma, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Bansal,Adv.
Mr. Madan Mohan,Adv.
Ms. Archana Sharma,Adv.
Mr. B.C. Santosh Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Lokendra Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR
Smt. Veena Bansal,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(MADHU BALA) (BEENA JOLLY)
AR-CUM-PS BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file)
