IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP(C).No. 751 of 2011(O) CMA.6/2010 of PRL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY OS.500/2009 of ADDL.MUNSIFF'S COURT, KANNUR PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. ASHRAF K.P, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.KADERKUTTY HAJEE, BUSINESS, SHAH VILLA, NEW BUS STAND ROAD, KANNUR-1 AMSOM, THAVAKARA WARD, KANNUR-1 2. JAMSHEED T.M, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.K.MAMMU, BUSINESS, JAFORA, KADACHIRA ROAD, P.O.EDAYKKAD, KANNUR 670 633. BY ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.M.N.MANMADAN SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED RESPONDENT: --------------- P.BHARATHAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.P.KELU, RETIRED DEFENCE EMPLOYEE (MES) PANANKAVIL HOUSE, P.O.THANA, KANNUR 670012. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ O.P.(C). NO. 751 OF 2011 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners filed O.S.No.500 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Additional Munsiff of Kannur against the respondent for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from leasing out a room in the building belonging to the respondent to any person other than the plaintiffs. Another prayer in the suit was to issue a direction to the defendant to lease out the room to the plaintiffs in terms of the agreement dated 27.7.2009 executed between the parties. 2. Temporary injunction was applied for by the plaintiffs. The trial court, as per the order dated 15.1.2010 in I.A.No.2794 of 2009, rejected the prayer for temporary injunction. That order was challenged by the petitioners in C.M.A.No.6 of 2010, Sub Court, Thalassery. The appellate court confirmed the order passed by the O.P.(C) NO.751 OF 2011 :: 2 :: trial court, as per the judgment dated 13.9.2010. The order and the judgment aforesaid are under challenge in this Original Petition. 3. There is no dispute that an agreement was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant on 27.7.2009, by which, the defendant agreed to lease out the room to the plaintiffs on a monthly rent of ` 1,50,000/-. Later, the defendant issued a notice dated 6.10.2009 rescinding the contract. An amount of Rupees Four lakhs, which was received as advance, was returned by issuing a cheque. The respondent contended that the room was let out to one Rajaratnam on 8.10.2009. The plaintiffs contended that the agreement allegedly executed between Rajaratnam and the defendant is not a genuine document and the stamp paper for that agreement was issued in favour of one Sainaba. The defendant raised a contention that the contract was rescinded on the ground that the plaintiffs were not ready to complete the transaction and execute the agreement. The plaintiffs wanted a company to be the lessee. It was also contended that the plaintiffs wanted certain additional conditions to be imposed, for which, the defendant was not agreeable. O.P.(C) NO.751 OF 2011 :: 3 :: 4. Both the courts below held, in the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the parameters for granting an order of temporary injunction, that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the discretionary relief of temporary injunction. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant contended that Rajaratnam surrendered possession of the building to the defendant and the building was let out to Moideenkutty, son of Ummer, Shameer House, Thrichambaram amsom and desom, Taliparamba and Shaji, son of Moideenkutty, as per the agreement dated 15.9.2010 and that they are in possession of the building. This submission is recorded. 6. The courts below arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get temporary injunction, based on the finding of facts. In an Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the finding of facts arrived at by the courts below would not normally be interfered with. Cogent reasons have been stated by the courts below for refusing the relief for injunction. No grounds are O.P.(C) NO.751 OF 2011 :: 4 :: made out under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. The Original Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/