Exclusive signage rights granted by a landlord are protectable by perpetual injunction against third-party obstruction.

The Plaintiff, a franchisee of M/s Raymond Limited, operates a shop at premises no. 7/1A, Lindsay Street, Kolkata.

The Plaintiff is a direct tenant under Defendant No. 1 (the owner) in respect of a shop room located on the ground floor of premises no. 7/1C, Lindsay Street.

Defendant No. 1 granted the Plaintiff exclusive permission to install and maintain glow or neon signboards on the parapet wall of the first-floor verandah of premises no. 7/1C.

Starting in late 2014 and again in April 2015, Defendant No. 3 (proprietor of Defendant No. 2) allegedly obstructed the Plaintiff’s attempts to repair and replace the signboards.

Despite possessing permission from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) and seeking police assistance, the Plaintiff was unable to exercise its rights, leading to the filing of the instant suit for declaration and injunction.

The Defendants failed to appear or file a written statement despite being served, and the suit proceeded as undefended.

1. Whether the Plaintiff holds an exclusive legal right to install, maintain, and renovate signboards on the parapet wall of the first-floor verandah of the suit premises.

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction against Defendants No. 2 and 3 to prevent interference with said signboards.

The Court primarily relied on the principles of civil evidence and the granting of relief under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Specifically, it applied the doctrine that unchallenged and uncontroverted testimony, supported by documentary evidence, establishes a prima facie case for declaratory and injunctive relief.

The court also relied on the principle that a tenant’s rights, when derived from an exclusive permission granted by a landlord, are protected from interference by third parties.

The Court examined the oral testimony of PW-1 and several key documents.

Specifically, it noted Ext. B (a letter dated 10/10/2001) and Ext. I (a letter dated 12/02/2015), which together proved that Defendant No. 1 had conferred exclusive rights upon the Plaintiff to install signboards on the first-floor parapet wall.

Further, Ext. J confirmed that the KMC had authorized the placement of said signage.

The Court observed that the Defendants did not challenge these documents or the testimony of the Plaintiff’s witness.

Consequently, the Court reasoned that the Plaintiff’s right was established as "exclusive," meaning no party other than the landlord (Defendant No. 1) had the authority to withdraw or interfere with this permission.

Since the permission remained valid and the Defendants offered no defense, the Court found the Plaintiff entitled to the protections sought.

It issued a declaratory decree affirming the Plaintiff's right to install, repair, and replace signboards on the parapet wall of the first-floor verandah of premises no. 7/1C, Lindsay Street, without obstruction, for the duration of the permission granted by Defendant No. 1.

Additionally, the Court granted a perpetual injunction restraining Defendants No. 2 and 3 from disturbing or interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful execution of works related to the signboards.

The suit was disposed of with a direction to draw up the decree.