Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Jonnalagadda Usha Rani vs Velamala Vasudeva Rao & Anr

Supreme Court3 January 2011A.K. Patnaik · R.V. Raveendran

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

In a suit for permanent injunction where the plaintiff claims to be in possession in her own right and the question of title and the relationship of landlord and tenant is not in issue, a defendant cannot obtain an order requiring the plaintiff to deposit arrears of rent or other charges referable to a landlord-tenant relationship.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.18 OF 2011
[Arising out of SLP(C) No.20290/2010]

Jonnalagadda Usha Rani .......Appellant

Versus

Velamala Vasudeva Rao & Anr. .....Respondents

O R D E R

Leave granted.

2. The appellant, claiming to be the owner in possession,

filed a suit against respondents for permanent injunction

alleging that she and her husband were carrying on business in

the said property from 1998 and the respondents were

interfering with such possession. In the said suit, which was

filed in July 2005, the defendants (respondents herein) filed

an application in 2007 seeking a direction to the appellant

(plaintiff in the suit) to deposit arrears of rent at the rate

of Rs.5,000/- per month from 1.6.2005. By a non-speaking order

dated 9.10.2007, the trial court allowed the said application

and the revision filed by the appellant has been dismissed by

the High Court by impugned order dated 19.3.2010. The said

order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.

2 3. The appellant contends that she is in possession in her

own right. She filed a mere suit for injunction. The

respondents claim that appellant is their tenant. If the

appellant as tenant had failed to pay rent, it is open to the

respondents as landlords/owners to seek possession/eviction or

seek a decree for rental arrears. In a suit for permanent

injunction filed by the appellant, when the question of title

and relationship of landlord and tenant is not in issue, the

respondents - defendants cannot claim that the appellant -

plaintiff should deposit Rs.5,000/- per month towards rent.

4. On this limited ground, this appeal is allowed and the

order dated 19.3.2010 is set aside and the application filed

by the respondents - defendants seeking deposit of rent is

dismissed. It is made clear that this will not come in the way

of the respondents taking such action as is permissible in law

to establish that the appellant is their tenant and to recover

rents if the appellant is the tenant. All questions left open.

.....................J.

( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi; ....................J.

January 03, 2011. ( A.K. PATNAIK )

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free