Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the interim injunction granted by the High Court of Bombay in favour of Respondent No. 1, Jasbir Singh Vijan, restraining the Appellant, Tushar Himatlal Jani, from dispossessing him from a disputed area of 550 square feet within a larger property. The Appellant's father was the original owner of a 22,000 square feet plot in Mumbai, out of which 11,250 square feet was leased to a partnership firm, M/s Silver Chem (India), owned by the Vijan family in 1972. Upon his father's death, the property devolved upon the Appellant. The Appellant terminated the lease in 2008 and filed an eviction suit before the Small Causes Court. Respondent No. 1, claiming to be a legal heir of a partner of the firm, sought impleadment in the eviction suit, which was initially allowed but later set aside by the Appellate Small Causes Court. Subsequently, a Family Settlement Agreement was executed among the Vijan family members in 2021, purportedly allocating Respondent No. 1 an undivided share of 550 square feet in the subject land. The partners of the firm and Respondent No. 1 entered into a leave and license agreement with M/s KMG Global in 2021, which the Appellant asserted was without his consent. The firm and its partners surrendered their tenancy rights in 2022, leading the Appellant to withdraw the eviction suit unconditionally in January 2023. Respondent No. 1 then filed a fresh suit seeking declaration of tenancy rights and obtained an interim injunction from the Small Causes Court, which was later set aside by the Appellate Bench. The High Court restored the injunction, prompting the Appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting the injunction as Respondent No. 1 failed to establish a prima facie case, the balance of convenience favoured the Appellant, and the Appellant would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction continued, given that the disputed area was only a small fraction of the property and the Appellant had redevelopment plans. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Small Causes Court to expedite the trial.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case - The court must satisfy itself of three essential prerequisites before granting an interim injunction: existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience in favour of the applicant, and irreparable injury not compensable in damages. (Para 15) B) Property Law - Tenancy Rights - Family Settlement Agreement - The validity of tenancy rights claimed through a family settlement agreement requires deeper scrutiny during trial and cannot be the basis for interim injunction without clear proof. (Para 17) C) Property Law - Balance of Convenience - Where the disputed area is a small fraction of the entire property and the owner has entered into redevelopment agreements, the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the owner, and an injunction restraining dispossession from the small portion would impede the entire project. (Para 16-17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in restoring the interim injunction in favour of Respondent No. 1 during the pendency of the suit.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 30.07.2024, and directed the Small Causes Court to expedite the trial of R.A.D. Suit No. 519/2023, preferably within six months.
Law Points
- Interim injunction
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable injury
- tenancy rights
- family settlement agreement
- locus standi
