JOY Vs. STEPHEN JACOB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question in rent control law arises for consideration in this civil revision. A lease of a building to which the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1965 applies was given pending a suit for declaration of the rights of the plaintiff in the suit to recover the building from the landlord. The suit was later decreed. Can the tenant be evicted in execution of the decree. In a suit for permanent injunction by the tenant to restrain the plaintiff in the suit for declaration and the landlord of the building from evicting him otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act, can a temporary injunction be refused on the ground that the tenant has not made out a prima facie case

(2.) The plaintiff in OS. No. 203 of 1983 of the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha is the petitioner in the civil revision. He took on rent a building belonging to the first respondent in 1978. The building is one to which the Kerala Act 2 of 1965 applies and hence the lease is governed by the provisions of the Act. When the lease arrangement was entered into, a suit filed by the 2nd respondent against the guardian of the 1st respondent owner of the building was pending before the Sub Court, Ernakulam. That suit by the previous tenant of the building was decreed granting a declaration that the 2nd respondent is entitled to get back the building previously occupied by her on payment of fair rent. The judgment and decree were confirmed in appeal and second appeal. The 1st respondent then filed O. S. No. 154 of 1983 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam for a declaration that he is entitled to recover vacant possession of the building and to direct the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the same. According to the petitioner the respondents have also resorted to pressure tactics for forcibly evicting the petitioner from the building and it was under the above circumstances that the petitioner filed this suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents, the landlord and the previous tenant decree holder in O. S. No. 81 of 1978 from evicting the petitioner from the building in question except in accordance with the provisions of Kerala Act 2 of 1965.

(3.) Along with the plaint, the petitioner moved I. A. No. 1150 of 1983. an application for temporary injunction. The Trial Court issued interim injunction. But on hearing the respondents the court vacated the injunction. Though the court held that the balance of convenience was in favour of the petitioner and irreparable injury will be caused to him if the injunction was not granted, according to the court the petitioner did not make out a prima facie case. The reason for holding that the petitioner did not make out a prima facie case, according to the Trial Court, was that the lease granted to the petitioner was hit by lis pendens.