Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Meher Farms Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Adhoc District Judge-1 (FTC) North Goa, Panaji, dated 14.07.2015, which dismissed the plaintiff's appeal against the rejection of their temporary injunction application by the trial court. The plaintiff had sought to restrain the defendant, Sociedade Patriotica Dos Baldios Das Novas Conquistas, from interfering with their possession of an agricultural land admeasuring 1,77,113 square metres at Village Uguem, taken under a registered Lease Deed dated 26.07.1979 w.e.f. 01.07.1978. The lease period expired on 30.06.1996 and was not renewed. The plaintiff claimed to have remained in possession after expiry, set up a cheese factory, paid rent and taxes, and that in September 2013, some persons attempted to plough the land. The defendant opposed the injunction, denying the plaintiff's possession. The trial court rejected the injunction application, and the appellate court affirmed. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of possession after lease expiry, as the lease deed was for agricultural purposes but the plaintiff had set up a cheese factory, indicating change of user. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence of rent payment or possession after 1996. The balance of convenience was not in favour of the plaintiff, and no irreparable loss was shown. The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the lower courts' orders.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Prima Facie Case - The plaintiff must establish a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience in its favour, and irreparable injury in the absence of injunction - The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove possession after lease expiry and that the lease deed itself showed the property was taken for agricultural purposes, but the plaintiff had set up a cheese factory, indicating a change of user - Held that the plaintiff did not make out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction (Paras 5-10).
B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 37 - Temporary Injunction - Lease Expiry - After expiry of the lease, the plaintiff's possession, if any, is that of a tenant holding over, but the plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence of payment of rent or possession after 1996 - The court noted that the plaintiff's claim of continuous possession was not supported by documentary evidence - Held that the balance of convenience did not favour the plaintiff (Paras 5-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with possession of the suit property after expiry of the lease deed.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of the Adhoc District Judge-1 (FTC) North Goa, Panaji, dated 14.07.2015 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2014 is upheld.
Law Points
- Temporary injunction
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- lease expiry
- possession after lease
- Section 37 Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (01) 108
Writ Petition No. 837 of 2015
Ms. A. A. Agni, Senior Advocate with Ms. K. Govekar for Petitioners; Mr. A. D. Bhobe for Respondents
M/s. Meher Farms Pvt. Ltd.
Sociedade Patriotica Dos Baldios Das Novas Conquistas
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging rejection of temporary injunction in a lease dispute.
Remedy Sought
The plaintiff sought a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with its possession of the suit property.
Filing Reason
The plaintiff claimed that in September 2013, some persons attempted to plough the suit property, and the defendant threatened to dispossess the plaintiff.
Previous Decisions
The trial court rejected the temporary injunction application; the appellate court (Adhoc District Judge-1) dismissed the appeal on 14.07.2015.
Issues
Whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction?
Whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff?
Whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury if injunction is not granted?
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiff argued that it was in continuous possession after lease expiry, had set up a cheese factory, paid rent and taxes, and that the defendant attempted to dispossess.
Defendant argued that the plaintiff's possession after lease expiry was not proved, and the lease was for agricultural purposes but the plaintiff changed user to a cheese factory.
Ratio Decidendi
For grant of temporary injunction, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience in its favour, and irreparable injury. The plaintiff failed to prove possession after lease expiry and change of user from agricultural to industrial, thus no prima facie case was made out.
Judgment Excerpts
The present Writ Petition is filed by the original Plaintiffs challenging the Order passed by the Adhoc District Judge-1 (FTC) North Goa, Panaji, in Misc. Civil Appeal no, 46 of 2014 dated 14.07.2015, by which the Appeal of the Plaintiffs against the Order of rejection of the temporary injunction application filed by the learned Trial Court is dismissed.
The Plaintiff further pleaded that to expand its business, the property belonging to the defendant was taken under a registered Lease Deed dated 26.07.1979 w.e.f. 01.07.1978.
According to the Plaintiff, the lease period had expired on 30.06.1996 and the lease was not renewed. Still the Plaintiff remained in possession of the suit property even after expiry of the Lease Deed.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction in the trial court along with an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The trial court rejected the injunction application. The plaintiff appealed to the District Court (Misc. Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2014), which was dismissed on 14.07.2015. The plaintiff then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 37
