THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.454 of 2009 Dated:21.10.2009 Between: Chalasani Venkateswara Rao, And others. ….Appellants And Sri Gowthimi Educational Society. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.454 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The appellants (defendants) who are eight in number are statedly owners of a building bearing door No.85-35-2 situated at Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. The upstairs portion was leased out to respondent (plaintiff). The said building was leased out to respondent on 21.04.2003 for a period of five years commencing from 01.03.2003. Be it noted the plaintiff is an educational institution running a school with good strength and sufficient number of staff. The lease period expired on 30.05.2008. The plaintiff instituted suit, being O.S.No.68 of 2008, on 13.09.2008 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, for perpetual injunction. They alleged that after expiry of lease there is a correspondence between the lessor and lessee and even while a decision could be arrived at, defendant Nos.1 to 4 who were influential people are resorting to extra judicial pressure to get the plaintiff evicted. Along with the suit, they also filed I.A.No.2873 of 2008 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for ad interim injunction. Defendant Nos.1 and 4 filed written statement denying the plaintiff’s case. They also filed a separate counter opposing the ad interim injunction. The learned District Judge on consideration of the rival contentions passed orders on 05.03.2009 grating injunction and further observing that the defendants can proceed legally and get the plaintiff evicted from the property. Feeling aggrieved by the interlocutory injunction the defendants filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. This Court ordered notice to the plaintiff. After service of notice, plaintiff is represented by Counsel. This Court heard both the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel for the defendants/appellants relies on a Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in D.T.T.D.C v M/s.D.R.Mehara and sons[1] and Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke v Pune Municipal Corporation[2] in support of his submission that there cannot be an injunction against the rightful owner at the instance of the tenant whose lease period expired. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition of law that ordinarily there cannot be an injunction against rightful owner. This principle, however, is not a rigid and inflexible rule. In a given case there can be an injunction even against rightful owner. We may give two illustrations. If there is a dispute between the brothers and a suit is pending, and one of the brother makes out a case that there is imminent threat of his eviction from the suit schedule property, nothing prevents the Court to order status quo as otherwise any decree passed would be futile. Secondly, in a case where there is a dispute between the lessor and lessee or landlord and tenant in respect of tenanted premises or in respect of extension of the lease or in respect of provision of amenities, tenant may complain that to report fait accompli landlord is using extra judicial methods to evict him, in such a case Court is bound to come to rescue to the weaker party as otherwise it would be putting premium on the efforts of stronger party to the litigation. If such an approach is not adopted, many of the suits filed by the landlords for eviction would become redundant. We are convinced that the learned District Judge, Rajahmundry, has exercised sound discretion in protecting the interest of both the parties while granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff/tenant and giving liberty the defendants/landlords to proceed legally for eviction of tenant. Indeed, there is no dispute that the defendants already instituted a suit, being O.S.No.46 of 2009, for eviction, which is pending adjudication on the file of the Family Court, Rajahmundry. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 21.10.2009 vs [1] AIR 1996 DELHI 351 [2] (1995) 3 SCC 33