P&H HC Upholds Status Quo Keeping Amritsar Tenant In Possession While Building’s Safety Remains Disputed

Respondent No. 1, a tenant in premises in Amritsar, sued for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession or damaging the property.

The petitioner, who claimed ownership through a bank auction, admitted the landlord–tenant relationship but asserted that the building was dilapidated and unsafe; he also filed a counterclaim.

On the plaintiff’s application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the Trial Court directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession and the condition of the property until final adjudication, noting that the plaintiff’s possession was admitted and that the building’s condition was disputed.

The Additional District Judge dismissed the petitioner’s appeal.

The petitioner then sought to set aside both orders under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The application before the Trial Court was under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which govern interlocutory injunctions.

Relying on Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727, the Court applied the principle that an appellate court should not substitute its discretion for that of the court of first instance unless the discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely, or the court ignored settled principles governing interlocutory injunctions; a different view on the same material is not, by itself, sufficient for interference.

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Trial Court had found that the plaintiff’s possession was admitted, while the parties disputed whether the building was safe or dilapidated; it treated the building’s actual condition as a matter for evidence and ordered status quo to preserve possession and the property pending adjudication.

The High Court found no cogent reason to conclude that the Trial Court’s discretionary order, affirmed on appeal, had been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely, or contrary to the principles in Wander.

It clarified that its observations would not affect the merits, which the Trial Court must decide uninfluenced by them; pending applications were also closed.