Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Baliram Dagadu Mundfane, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 28 November 2017 passed by the Ad-hoc Additional District Judge-1, Malshiras. The appellate court had allowed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.26 of 2017 and vacated the interim injunction granted by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Malshiras on 22 August 2017 in Regular Civil Suit No.9 of 2017. The petitioner claimed that his mother Yashodabai was a tenant of the suit land (23 acres out of Gat No.612, total 10 H 52 R, at Village Mahalung, Taluka Malshiras, District Solapur) given by Brihan Maharashtra Syndicate Limited under the Maharashtra Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. After her death, the petitioner continued cultivation. The respondent, Maharashtra State Agricultural Corporation Limited, had given the land to M/s. Adhirat Trading Company Private Limited for joint cultivation for five years, later extended. M/s. Adhirat Trading Company sublet the land to various farmers, including the petitioner, who paid consideration. The petitioner sought injunction against dispossession. The trial court granted injunction, but the appellate court vacated it. The High Court held that the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's order without properly considering the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. The High Court set aside the appellate order and restored the trial court's injunction, directing the parties to maintain status quo.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case - The court considered whether the petitioner had a prima facie case for injunction based on his claim of tenancy and possession - Held that the trial court's finding of prima facie case was correct and the appellate court erred in reversing it without proper consideration (Paras 10-15). B) Tenancy Rights - Possession - Protection of Tenant - The petitioner claimed to be a tenant in possession of the land, paying consideration to the lessee - The court held that the petitioner's possession was protected and the respondents could not dispossess him without due process (Paras 5-8). C) Injunction - Balance of Convenience - The court found that the balance of convenience was in favor of the petitioner as he would suffer irreparable loss if dispossessed during the pendency of the suit (Paras 16-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Ad-hoc Additional District Judge erred in vacating the interim injunction granted by the trial court in favor of the petitioner who claims to be a tenant in possession of the suit land.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate order dated 28 November 2017, and restored the trial court's order of interim injunction dated 22 August 2017. The parties were directed to maintain status quo during the pendency of the suit.
Law Points
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- tenant rights
- possession
- injunction
