MALTI SURESH CHOKSHI Vs. HARILALAND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the original plaintiff and the Respondent is the original defendant in the proceedings for eviction filed by the petitioner in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, on the ground of bonafide requirement. In these proceedings the petitioner took out proceedings for temporary injunction restraining the Respondent from transferring or creating any third party rights in respect of the suit premises. The Respondent contested the application for temporary injunction and further averred in the affidavit in reply that they have no intention to dispose of the suit premises or the business therein as contemplated under Section 15 of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act. The petitioner in support of her case relied on the affidavit of one Shri Vinod Popat, who described himself as an Estate Officer. The trial Court initially granted ex-parte relief. The same was confirmed by order dated 29th April, 1994.

(2.) THE Respondent aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge of the Small Causes Court preferred an appeal, which was numbered as Appeal No.321 of 1994. By judgment dated 6th October, 1995 the Appellate Court has reversed the order of the trial Court. The Appellate Court rejected the evidence in the form of the affidavit of Shri Vinod Popat. The Appellate Court held that in the original affidavit the name of Mr. Popat did not find place and some other name was included. That the said name was scored out and the name of Shri Popat was included by hand. The said Shri Popat in his affidavit had also not set out as to who was the third party, who had approached him for transferring the tenancy rights so also no details have been set out in the said affidavit of Shri Popat regarding the business he was carrying on and the particulars of his business. In view of that, the affidavit evidence of Shri Popat was rejected. The Court also noted the statement made by the Respondent in the affidavit in reply that they do not propose to dispose of the premises or the business as contemplated under Section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act. In these circumstances, the Appellate Court arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner had failed to made out a case to grant interim relief of temporary injunction and accordingly vacated the injunction granted by the trial Court.

(3.) A person seeking injunction must make out a case for injunction. In the instant case apart from the affidavit of the petitioner the only evidence was the affidavit evidence of Shri Popat which was rejected. There was no other material to show that in fact the respondent was trying to part with the premises or the business in favour of any third party. On the contrary in the affidavit in reply the affiant has made it clear that they have no intention to dispose of the suit premises or business therein as contemplated under Section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act. In the face of this there was no other material warranting the Court to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner had made out a case for grant of injunction. The petitioner has been unable to show that the order of the Appellate Court suffers from perversity. In the absence of showing any perversity or error apparent no interference is called for with the order of the Appellate Court.