G. MOHANAN THAMPI Vs. SUBRAMONIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order of interim mandatory injunction in a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is under challenge by the defendant.

(2.) There is not much of a dispute that the respondent/plaintiff was a tenant of the disputed shop room. It is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that the petitioner/defendant who claims to be an assignee from the original land owner has thrown him out of possession on 19.11.2017. Accordingly, the suit has been filed under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for restoration of possession. In the suit, he filed an interim mandatory injunction application for restoration of possession. It is the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that, on 27.1.2016 the owner of the property, Mahadevan had entered into an agreement for sale in respect of the property with the building situated thereon, for valuable consideration and the defendant/petitioner was put in possession, in part performance of the agreement. The disputed shop room was surrendered by the respondent/tenant prior to the sale agreement dated 27.1.2016. The respondent/tenant had surrendered the tenancy right on receiving Rs. 2 lakhs from the said Mahadevan, and has vacated the shop room in question. He was not in possession of the shop room within a period of six months preceding the date of filing of the suit. Thus the prayer was opposed.

(3.) In a suit for recovery of possession under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff needs to prove that he was in possession of the property in question within a period of six months immediately prior to the date of institution of the suit. Other questions regarding the right, title and interest interse between the parties are not of significance. The adjudication is purely summary in nature. Granting a relief of interim mandatory injunction in such a proceeding needs to be cautiously done. It would often amount to, as goes the saying, putting the cart in front of the horse.