Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the appellant-landlord against the judgment of the Bombay High Court which had affirmed the First Appellate Court's decree granting permanent injunction in favour of the first respondent-plaintiff. The dispute pertained to a suit premises in Pune where the first respondent claimed to be a tenant since 1977, running an eating house, pan shop, and fabrication work. The appellant-landlord contended that after a settlement in an earlier suit (RCS No.1004/1988), the plaintiff had vacated the premises in 1991, and the landlord-tenant relationship ceased. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove actual possession, as he did not produce licences or electricity connection for the alleged businesses. The First Appellate Court reversed this decision, inferring possession from the Purshis Ex.-41 (withdrawal application in the earlier suit) and from the plaintiff obtaining permission from the Corporation for repairs. The High Court upheld this in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court examined the legal issue of whether permanent injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 could be granted without proof of actual possession. The Court held that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish actual and physical possession on the date of suit, and possession cannot be inferred from circumstances alone. The Court noted that the plaintiff admitted to not holding licences for hotel and pan shop, and lacked three-phase electricity connection for fabrication work, making his claim of business activity improbable. The Commissioner's report indicated the premises was in dilapidated condition, unfit for business. The Court also observed that the plaintiff did not pay rent since 1991 and failed to rebut the defendant's evidence of settlement and vacation. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and First Appellate Court, restoring the trial court's dismissal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act - Permanent Injunction - Section 38 - Actual Possession - In a suit for permanent injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the plaintiff must prove actual and physical possession on the date of filing the suit; possession cannot be inferred from circumstances alone. The court held that the First Appellate Court erred in drawing inference of possession from the Purshis Ex.-41 and other circumstances, as the plaintiff failed to adduce substantive evidence of possession. (Paras 7-11) B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Possession - The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish actual possession; the defendant need not prove that the plaintiff vacated. The court observed that the plaintiff's failure to rebut the defendant's contention of settlement and vacation in 1991, coupled with absence of rent payment since 1991, weighed against the plaintiff's claim. (Paras 8-11) C) Specific Relief Act - Permanent Injunction - Section 38 - Business Licences and Electricity Connection - Absence of requisite licences and three-phase electricity connection for running hotel, pan shop, and fabrication work undermines the plaintiff's claim of actual possession and business activity. The trial court's rejection of the plaintiff's plea based on lack of licences and electricity connection was upheld. (Paras 12-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court and First Appellate Court were right in granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff-tenant under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, when the plaintiff failed to prove actual possession on the date of filing the suit.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and First Appellate Court, and restored the trial court's judgment dismissing the suit for permanent injunction.
Law Points
- Burden of proof lies on plaintiff to prove actual possession for grant of permanent injunction
- Possession cannot be inferred from circumstances alone
- Absence of business licences and electricity connection negates claim of possession
