Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a dispute concerning possession of tenements allotted by a cooperative housing society, where certain allottees faced proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The appellants, a cooperative housing society and others, sought to prevent disturbance of possession of nine allottees who had allegedly entered into agreements to sell their properties, and the High Court, both a single judge and a Division Bench, had declined to grant injunctions in their favour. Pursuant to directions issued by the Supreme Court on July 28, 1995 and August 11, 1995, an affidavit was filed clarifying the position: out of 169 original allottees, 57 were employees of respondent No. 2 (departmental employees); of the remaining 112 allottees, 9 had been served notices under the Act, while 103 original allottees continued to reside in their tenements with their families, having neither sold nor transferred their rights. The respondent's senior counsel stated across the bar that no action was being taken against any person other than the nine allottees who had allegedly parted with their right to remain in possession. The appellants' counsel contended that though these nine allottees had entered into agreements to sell, those agreements were subject matter of a pending suit in the High Court, and therefore their possession could not be disturbed. The core legal issue was whether the Supreme Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the High Court's discretionary refusal of injunction. The Court observed that injunction is a discretionary order and that the High Court had refused to exercise its discretion in favour of the nine persons. Finding no compelling reason to take a different view, the Supreme Court held that it was not expedient under Article 136 to upset the High Court's order. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of without any order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Injunction - Discretionary Relief - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - The High Court, both single judge and Division Bench, refused to grant injunction in favour of nine allottees who had entered into agreements to sell their tenements, which agreements were subject matter of a pending suit; the Supreme Court held that injunction being a discretionary order and the High Court having refused to exercise discretion in favour of the nine persons, there was no ground to take a different view or to deem it expedient under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to upset the High Court's order; the appeal was disposed of with no costs.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Supreme Court should interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution with the High Court's discretionary refusal to grant injunction restraining eviction of nine allottees under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971
Final Decision
Appeal disposed of; no costs. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's discretionary refusal of injunction under Article 136.
Law Points
- Injunction is a discretionary remedy
- High Court's refusal to grant injunction is not ordinarily interfered with under Article 136 of the Constitution of India
- 1950
- unless exceptional grounds are shown
- Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act
- 1971 governs eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises
