2013 (5) TMI 1035 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interim relief u/O 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.
2. Specific performance of the Agreement.
3. Rights of a licensee u/s 64 of The Indian Easements Act, 1882.
4. Permission for letting out the suit property.

Summary:

Interim Relief u/O 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC:
The plaintiff sought interim relief to restrain the defendant from obstructing access to the first floor of the property. The Court noted that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property at the time of filing the suit and had been deprived of its use for over one and a half years. The Court denied the interim mandatory relief, stating that granting such relief would effectively allow the plaintiff to use the property, which it was not using at the time of the suit's institution.

Specific Performance of the Agreement:
The plaintiff claimed specific performance of an Agreement dated 3rd August 2010, which allegedly granted the plaintiff the first option to purchase the property. The Court observed that the Agreement did not mention the price and was not between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1, making it unenforceable. The Court also noted that the plaintiff had not sought relief of pre-emption but only specific performance.

Rights of a Licensee u/s 64 of The Indian Easements Act, 1882:
The plaintiff claimed permissive use and occupation of the first floor, arguing that it was a licensee. The Court referred to Section 64 of The Indian Easements Act, 1882, which limits the remedy of an evicted licensee to recovering compensation and not re-possession. The Court cited Supreme Court judgments affirming this interpretation and rejected the plaintiff's plea for re-possession.

Permission for Letting Out the Suit Property:
The defendant no. 2 sought permission to let out the property during the suit's pendency. The Court found this request reasonable, emphasizing that the property should not lie unused and deteriorate. The Court permitted the defendant no. 2 to let out the property for not more than three years, subject to Court approval of the Lease Agreement and conditions ensuring the tenant's eviction if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit.

Conclusion:
The Court made the earlier order directing all parties to maintain status quo absolute and allowed the defendant no. 2 to let out the property under specified conditions. The applications were disposed of, with all observations being prima facie and not affecting the final adjudication of the suit.