Subsequent purchasers may undertake minor habitability repairs to occupied premises regardless of pending injunction applications or municipal notices.

The appellants are subsequent purchasers of a portion of a property involved in a title suit filed by the respondents.

After being impleaded, the appellants sought an injunction to restrain the plaintiffs/respondents from interfering with necessary repairs (plastering and flooring) in their occupied portion.

The Trial Court, via Order No. 49 dated September 11, 2025, permitted only a limited repair to the main entrance door and postponed the rest of the application until after the disposal of the plaintiffs' prior injunction application.

The respondents opposed further repairs, citing a pending notice under Section 401 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) Act and fearing unauthorized structural alterations.

1. Whether the appellants, as purchasers in possession, are entitled to carry out minor repairs (plastering and floor patching) despite a pending injunction application by the plaintiffs.

2. Whether a notice under Section 401 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act acts as an absolute bar to permitting such repairs.

The Court applied the principle that an owner/occupier in possession has an inherent right to maintain their property in a "habitable condition".

In interpreting the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, the Court observed that the statutory scheme—specifically regarding Section 401—contemplates providing occupiers an opportunity to rectify building deficiencies prior to any extreme measures like demolition.

The Court relied on the principle of "special equity," ensuring that interim repairs do not grant the repairing party an unfair advantage or altered legal status during the final adjudication of the suit.

The Court found that the scope of the requested repairs was narrow, limited to plastering walls and patching floors within the appellants' purchased portion.

The Court reasoned that since possession was admitted, the appellants must be allowed to keep the premises habitable.

Regarding the Section 401 KMC Act notice, the Court held it was not a "deterrent," as the legislative intent of the Act is to allow occupiers to make good on deficiencies.

To balance the equities and address the respondents' fears of major structural changes, the Court imposed a restriction against "substantial addition or alteration" and clarified that the repairs would be at the appellants' own cost and risk, creating no "special equity" in their favor at the final hearing.

The High Court partially modified the Trial Court's order and allowed the appeal, directing that no substantial additions or alterations be made under the guise of repair and that these works would not prejudice the rights of the parties in the pending suit or the plaintiffs' separate injunction application; the injunction application filed by the appellants in the Trial Court was deemed disposed of.