Allowed

Prasant Kundu v. Salimur Rahman

Gauhati HC12 Aug 2021I.A.(Civil)/1015/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of an application seeking vacation of an interim order staying a mandatory injunction granted by a lower court to a tenant against a landlord. The Court held the stay was liable to be vacated without deciding substantive rental rights.

What did the court decide?

The interim order dated 19.03.2021 staying the Munsiff's order dated 17.03.2021 was vacated. The I.A. by the applicant stands disposed of.

Prasant Kundu Vs Salimur Rahman — Landlord and Tenant | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010077622021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1015/2021

CRP(I/O)/33/2021

PRASANT KUNDU

S/O. SRI PRAHLAD KUNDU, R/O. FLAT NO. 5(A), GULSHAN RESIDENCY, NEAR SUPER MARKET TRAFFIC POINT, G.S. ROAD, P.S. DISPUR, GHY- 6, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

SALIMUR RAHMAN

¶12

S/O. LATE SAIFUR RAHMAN, R/O. H/NO. 182, SIXMILE, JAYANAGAR, P.O. KHANAPARA, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G SAIKIA

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶16

ORDER

¶17

12.08.2021

¶18

Heard Sri G. Saikia, learned counsel for the applicant, who has filed this I.A. for vacation/ modification of the ex parte interim order dated 19.03.2021 passed by this Court in CRP(I/O) No. 33/2021. By the said order dated 19.03.2021, this Court, while issuing the Notice had directed that till the returnable date, the operation of the order dated 17.03.2021

¶19

Page No.# 2/3

¶20

passed in Misc.(J) Case No. 57/2021, pending in the Court of Munsiff No.4, Kamrup (M), shall remain suspended.

¶21

Sri Saikia, learned counsel for the applicant submits that as a tenant, he had instituted a suit against the discontinuation of water supply. While the suit was pending, there were fire in the premises, taking advantage of which the landlord had taken forceful possession of the tenant premises. The applicant, accordingly filed Misc.(J) Case No. 57/2021 in the existing Title Suit No. 67/2021. In the said Misc.(J) Case No. 57/2021, the learned Munsiff No.4 has passed an order dated 17.03.2021 whereby it has been observed that the case for grant of mandatory injunction was made out and accordingly, the opposite party (revision petitioner) was directed to open the shutter of the suit premises and not to close the gate of the suit premises untimely. It was further directed that the opposite party (revision petitioner) would restrain from interfering in the repairing and renovation of the interior of the suit premises.

¶22

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the interim order passed by this Court was not called for inasmuch as the aforesaid order dated 17.03.2021 was an inter parte order and has been passed as an interim relief in the existing suit. It is further submitted that in the event the said direction is stayed, the entire purpose and object of filing the suit would be defeated.

¶23

On the other hand, Sri M. Khan, learned counsel for the opposite party (revision petitioner) submits that the applicant is a defaulter and no rent has been paid. He further submits that as the owner of the premises, there is a bona fide requirement of the premises and therefore, the applicant cannot forcefully keep on possessing the premises, more so when the tenancy agreement has expired in the meantime.

¶24

No doubt, the opposite party (revision petitioner), as the landlord would have certain rights to get the premises vacated but those rights have to be established independently in the Court of law by filing an appropriate suit for ejectment, which, admittedly has not been done. The exception granted by way of proviso to Section 5 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 cannot be taken for collateral purpose without filing an independent suit or atleast a counter claim. Therefore, without commenting on the rights ascertained by the opposite party as the owners, this Court is of the opinion that the present order dated

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

19.03.2021 suspending the order dated 17.03.2021 passed by the learned Munsiff No.4,

¶27

Kamrup (M) is liable to be vacated.

¶28

Accordingly, the interim order dated 19.03.2021 stands vacated.

¶29

In view of the above, the I.A. stands disposed of.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Prasant Kundu v. Salimur Rahman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasant Kundu v. Salimur Rahman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surovi Bora Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

All Assam Social Welfare Statistical Employees Association and 4 Ors. Vs Anowara Begum and 31 Ors.

Tapan Barua Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Salimur Rahman Vs Prasant Kundu

Nomal Ch. Bordoloi and 38 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Sukumar Sarkar and 7 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.