Mustafa vs Madrasah Taiyebiyah Committee ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2345 MP

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
                               BEFORE
               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA

                   ON THE 21st OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                MISC. PETITION No. 3057 of 2021

 Between:-
 MUSTAFA S/O SAIFUDDIN PAWAWALA ,
 AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
 OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
 SAIFEE MOHALLA, RATLAM
 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                      .....PETITIONER

 (BY SHRI VISHAL LAKSHARI, ADVOCATE )

 AND

 MADRASAH TAIYEBIYAH COMMITTEE RATLAM
 THROUGH SECRETARY KALIMY COLONY,
 BEHIND JAIN SCHOOL RATLAM
 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                    .....RESPONDENTS

 (BY MS RAVINA BAIRAGEE, ADVOCATE )

      This petition coming on for order this day, the court passed the
following:


                               ORDER

With consent of both the parties, present petition is heard finally.

Present Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the impugned order dated0 9/03/2021 passed in Civil Suit no. 18-A/2020 passed by the 3 rd Civil Judge, Class-I, Ratlam, whereby the civil appeal was partly allowed and the impugned order dated 08/04/2021 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal no. 20/2021 by the District Judge, Ratlam, whereby the appeal has been dismissed.

       2.     The       facts   of     the   case     in    brief   are   that   the
petitioner/plaintiff     has        filed   a      civil    suit    against     the

respondent/defendant for declaration, perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction for preventing him forcefully without following due process of law from the disputed tenanted premises, and for restoration of water supply and electricity connection which has been disconnected. The petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code ( in short "CPC"). After hearing both the parties, the trial Court partly allowed interim injunction application and grant interim injunction order against forceful dispossession. However, the trial court has rejected the interim relief for restoration of essential services water supply and electricity by passing order dated 09.03.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred miscellaneous appeal against that order before District judge Ratlam and same was rejected by passing order dated 08.04.2021. Hence this misc. petition has been preferred by plaintiff/petitioner before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has committed grave error while partly allowing his interim injunction application. The trial Court has not considered the facts and the documents available on record and failed to appreciate actual and real controversy between the parties. The agreed rent between the parties at the rate of 400/ per month. The respondents/defendant proposed the rent agreement at the rate of 2500/- per month. But the defendant/respondent issued letter for payment of rent at the rate of 4025/- per month. Both the Courts below have not considered the legal aspect and passed the impugned orders contrary to law, therefore, the same deserve to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner by supporting the impugned orders passed by the Courts below.

5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and gone through the records.

6. On perusal of the records, it appears that it is an admitted position that the petitioner/plaintiff is a tenant and the respondent/defendant Madarsa is landlord. It is also an admitted position that earlier rent agreement between the parties was Rs. 400/- per month, therefore, the defendant proposed rent @ Rs. 2500/- per month and thereafter, the defendant issued a notice for payment of rent @ Rs. 4025/- per month. There is dispute between the parties regarding rate of monthly rent of the suit premises. It is also an admitted position that no new rent agreement has been executed between both the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a small businessman and is earning low income from the said shop, therefore, he is unable to pay monthly rent @ Rs. 4025/- per month, but it is very surprising to understand that as stated, the petitioner is a small businessman, poor person and he is not having sufficient means to pay the monthly rent on increased rate i.e. Rs. 4025/- per month, but he has deposited Rs. 19,00,000/- approximately for reconstruction of the Madarasa run by the respondent/defendant. The petitioner did not disclose the fact as to why he had paid such huge amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- to the defendant/respondent. The purpose behind such payment is unknown and it appears to be mysterious.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the reconstruction of the suit premises is still going on, but without completion of work, the petitioner/plaintiff forcefully entered the suit premises and started running his shop without executing new rent agreement, therefore, the problem of electricity connection and water supply created and the petitioner himself is responsible for the said problem.

9. Contention of the respondent is well supported by various notices issued to the petitioner by the respondent from time to time through registered(AD), but the petitioner did not sent any reply to contradict such allegations, therefore, the conduct of the petitioner does not appear to be bonafide.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that water supply and electricity connection falls within the "Right to Life" under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. These are the basic necessity for human beings and can well be termed as essential for human life. There is no reason to deny basic amenities to the petitioner, therfore, his rights be protected.

11. To bolster his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment/order passed in the case of Sirajunnisha Vs. Sukhajeet Singh ( Second Appeal no. 351/2021 decided on 12/09/2002); by High Court of Chhatisgarh; Ramjilal Sharma and others Vs. Purushottam Lal Sharma (Second Appeal no. 200/1991 decided on 29/01/1993) passed by High Court of Gauhati : K.N .Raveendranadhan and others Vs. The Kerla State Electricity Board and others (W.P.(c) no.34061/2014(G)) passed by High Court of Kerla as well as Firm and Illuri Subbayya Chetty and Sons Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1964 air 322 delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court. But in the present case, the petitioner did not come before the Court with clean hand, therefore, he does not deserve for parity with the aforementioned judgments. Reconstruction of the suit premises is still continuing and the petitioner himself forcefully entered the suit premises, without executing new rent agreement and following due process regarding electricity and water supply system. In the entire suit premises alongwith the suit shop possessed by the petitioner, construction work is still going on, even then the petitioner is enjoying the suit property. There is nothing on record that the respondent is willfully creating any obstruction for providing the alleged basic amenities, therefore, there is no prima-facie case regarding above prayer in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff and other irreparable loss and balance of convenience do not find in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff.

12. In light of the above discussions, the petitioner does not deserve for any interim injunction against the respondent.

Accordingly, present petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.

CC as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Digitally signed by AMOL N MAHANAG Date: 2022.02.23 13:35:47 +05'30'