Tenants' Suit For Injunction Collapses Once Counterclaim Is Made By Landlord Seeking Ejectment After Serving Notice: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that the moment a landlord files a counter-claim seeking ejectment preceded by a statutory notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the very foundation of the tenant's suit for injunction alleging unlawful dispossession collapses.Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while dismissing an appeal filed by a tenant, Suresh Babu C, challenging...
The Karnataka High Court has held that the moment a landlord files a counter-claim seeking ejectment preceded by a statutory notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the very foundation of the tenant's suit for injunction alleging unlawful dispossession collapses.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while dismissing an appeal filed by a tenant, Suresh Babu C, challenging the trial court order which held that in a bare suit for injunction filed by the appellant/tenant, the respondents/landlords are entitled to seek relief of ejectment by filing a counter claim.
Accordingly, appellant's suit for injunction was dismissed, and respondent's (V Varadarajan) counterclaim for ejectment was decreed. The appellant had instituted the suit seeking an injunction on the grounds that his son is studying in 9th standard, the respondents are high handedly demanding that the appellant vacate the premises on or before 30.9.2024.
On going through the records, the court noted that the appellant has unequivocally admitted the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the expiry of the lease on 28.02.2014, and receipt of the statutory notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy. These foundational admissions made by the appellant clearly establish that the tenancy had come to an end in accordance with law.
Following which the court said, “The trial Court has rightly concluded that once the tenancy stands terminated through the issuance of a valid and admitted quit notice, the tenant's legal right to remain in possession ceases, and consequently, the protection under a suit for bare injunction is no longer tenable. The grievance of the appellant that he was denied an opportunity to lead evidence deserves to be rejected in the factual context of the case.
It emphasised that once the counter-claim was entertained, the lis between the parties was no longer confined to the limited scope of a prohibitory injunction. The moment a landlord files a counter-claim seeking ejectment preceded by a statutory notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the very foundation of the tenant's suit for injunction alleging unlawful dispossession collapses.
The court held “In the backdrop of appellant's admissions which went unrebutted, and the legal effect of termination of tenancy, the trial Court rightly held that no further evidence was necessary to examine the appellant's claim. The Trial Court's approach in treating the matter as one governed by admitted facts and proceeding to adjudicate the counter claim accordingly does not disclose any procedural illegality or irregularity. The appellant's failure to contest the termination of tenancy or assert any subsisting right to possession further weakens the claim for injunction.”
Further, the bench clarified that “The landlord is not precluded from asserting his right to seek recovery of possession by way of a counter claim. The maintainability of such a counter-claim is firmly rooted in the statutory scheme of Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permits a defendant to set up any right or claim against the plaintiff, independent of whether it arises out of the same cause of action as the suit.”
The court observed that when a tenant approaches the Court invoking its equitable jurisdiction for a decree of injunction to protect possession, it would be both illogical and legally unwarranted to compel the landlord to initiate a separate suit for eviction, especially when the issue of possession and the right to occupy the premises arises from the very same tenancy arrangement that is the subject of the tenant's injunction suit.
Further, the court rejected the prayer made by the appellant to grant a period of one year to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the suit premises, considering the submission that the respondent is 94 years old and is suffering from cancer.
The court said “In a matter where the landlord has established lawful termination of tenancy, and especially where a counter-claim for possession has been upheld after due adjudication, this Court cannot grant discretionary relief in equity when the respondents themselves have explicitly declined any such concession.”
Accordingly, it dismissed the petition.
Appearance: Advocate Naveed Ahmed for Advocate NoorMohammed for Appellant.
Senior Advocate G. Krishna Murthy for Advocate Jaysham Jayasimha Rao for C/R1 AND 2.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 230
Case Title: Suresh Babu C AND V Varadarajan & ANR
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1340 OF 2025