1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) TUESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA O.A. No.219 of 2011 in C.S. No.157 of 2011 M/s.Bohemian Destinations Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Mr.N.G.George, No.7, Khader Nawaz Khan Road, Chennai-600 006. ... Applicant/Plaintiff -Versus- R.Balakumar, 3, Crescent Street, ABM Avenue, Chennai-28. ... Respondent/Defendant Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an order of ad-interim injunction, restraining the respondent, from proceeding with R.C.O.P. No.244 of 2010 pending on the file of XI Small Causes Court, Chennai against the Applicant in respect of the Leased Premises morefully described in the schedule herein under pending disposal of the above suit. This Original Application coming on this day before this court for hearing the court made the following order: The plaintiff/applicant has filed C.S.No.157 of 2011 against the defendant/non applicant i.e. landlord of the premises with the prayer for directing the defendant/landlord to pay a sum of Rs.32 lakhs as damages to the plaintiff on account of loss till date with future damages at Rs.1 lakh per month. 2 The plaintiff also seeks mandatory injunction https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 directing the defendant/landlord, to adhere to the terms and conditions entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant in the lease agreement dated 30.04.2008. 3 The prayer is also made to direct the defendant to sign all the documents for seeking approval to convert rented building from residential to commercial. 4 The prayer is also for declaration that the landlord is not entitled to claim any rent for the building and that the suit is for declaration, that the lease deed executed between the parties is binding on the defendants with consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from collecting rent. 5 The pleaded case of the plaintiff, is that the parties to the suit had entered into registered lease for initial period of 5 years with option of extension by another four years. As per the terms of the lease deed, the property was leased out to the plaintiff/applicant. The parties with lease deed only described the nature of business being carried out by the plaintiff, without disclosing the object for which the property was leased out to the plaintiff. Subject to payment of lease money, the lessee was allowed to use the premises in terms of the lease deed executed between the parties. 6 Clause 8 of the lease deed stipulated that if premises or part thereof cannot be used for any default or negligence on the part of the lessor, the lessee shall not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 liable to pay rent for the said period under the leasse. It was for the defendant/landlord to provide power connection or generator to the plaintiff for leased premises. 7 It is the case of the plaintiff, that after the execution of the lease agreement, plaintiff started running business in the premises. The Corporation of Chennai issued notice to the plaintiff, calling upon him to produce sanction plan showing use of premises for commercial purpose. On the receipt of notice from Corporation, plaintiff wrote to the defendant/ landlord to supply necessary sanction plan or in the alternative, sign necessary papers for conversion of residential property into commercial property, but the defendant has failed to do so. The plaintiff/applicant therefore is entitled to relief as prayed for. 8 It is also the case of the plaintiff/applicant that the defendant instead of complying with the terms of the agreement of lease deed, filed R.C.O.P. for eviction on the ground of wilfull default in payment of rent. After filing of the R.C.O.P., the plaintiff approached this Court to enforce the terms of the agreement with the prayer as reproduced above. Along with the suit, the plaintiff has filed two applications; i.e. O.A.No.218 and 219 of 2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 O.A.No.219 of 2011: 9 This application has been filed for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding with R.C.O.P.No.244 of 2010 pending on the file of XI Small Causes Court, Chennai, against the applicant, morefully described in the schedule of the application. 10 This application on the face of it is misconceived. The interim direction passed by the learned Rent Controller for deposit of rent was challenged by the plaintiff/applicant in appeal. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, instead of deposit of rent, directed the plaintiff herein to furnish bank guarantee. The defendant/landlord aggrieved over the order passed by the Appellate Authority has approached this Court by filing Civil revision petition in this Court. 11 This Court, has no jurisdiction to restrain the co-ordinate Bench from proceeding with the matter, nor any prima facie case is made out to restrain the defendant/respondent from prosecuting his remedy in accordance with law. 12 It is well settled law that no injunction can be passed restraining the petitioner from prosecuting the legal remedy in accordance with law. The prayer for injunction is otherwise misconceived as the applicant has an equally effacacious remedy to contrest the petition filed by the defendant/Landlord, therefore prayer of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 injunction would be barred under section 41(b) of Specific Relief Act. 13 This application thus being totally misconceived is ordered to be dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). No cost. Sd/-V.K.S.J 22.11.2011 //Certified to be a true copy// Dated this the day of 2012. R.s/06.01.2012 COURT OFFICER From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/