When Landlord Files Counter-Claim Seeking Ejectment Preceded By Statutory Notice, Tenant’s Suit For Injunction Alleging Unlawful Dispossession Collapses: Karnataka High Court

The High Court was considering an appeal challenging the decree rendered on the counter-claim.

The Single Bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, “The respondents/landlords, upon entering appearance, filed a detailed counter-claim seeking the relief of possession on the basis of termination of tenancy. Once the counter-claim was entertained, the lis between the parties was no longer confined to the limited scope of prohibitory injunction. The moment a landlord files a counter-claim seeking ejectment preceded by a statutory notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the very foundation of the tenant’s suit for injunction alleging unlawful dispossession collapses. The cause of action for an injunction simplicitor becomes infructuous, as the issue shifts from apprehended dispossession to determination of lawful entitlement to possession.”

Advocate Naveed Ahmed represented the Appellant while Senior Counsel G. Krishna Murthy represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant had filed a suit for injunction by alleging that he is a tenant under the respondents, and the respondents have let out the suit schedule property under a lease deed. The appellant further alleged that the respondents, despite being aware of the fact that his son is studying in the 9th Standard in a Boys' School, were demanding that the appellant vacate the premises. The Trial Court dismissed the appellant's suit for injunction and decreed the respondent's counterclaim for ejectment.

Reasoning

On a detailed scrutiny of the pleadings and the judgment of the trial Court, the Court noted that the appellant had categorically admitted material facts which went to the root of the dispute. The appellant had unequivocally admitted the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the expiry of the lease and receipt of the statutory notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy. As per the Bench, these foundational admissions made by the appellant established that the tenancy had come to an end in accordance with law.

The Bench upheld the view of the Trial Court that once the tenancy stood terminated through the issuance of a valid and admitted quit notice, the tenant’s legal right to remain in possession ceased, and consequently, the protection under a suit for bare injunction was no longer tenable. It was also held that the appellant’s failure to contest the termination of tenancy or assert any subsisting right to possession further weakened the claim for injunction.

The Bench further observed, “Once the tenant admits the jural relationship and does not dispute the termination of tenancy, the landlord is well within his rights to utilize the platform of the tenant’s suit to seek recovery of possession by filing a counterclaim. The jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and adjudicate such a counter-claim is not ousted merely because the original suit was instituted by the tenant for injunction simplicitor. Rather, the existence of the tenancy, its termination, and the continuing possession of the tenant together constitute a common thread tying both claims thereby satisfying the test of commonality of cause of action under Rule 6A.”

It was further noticed that the respondent landlord is aged about 94 years and is suffering from cancer, a condition which requires peace, dignity, and stability in his remaining years. In view of his critical health condition and advanced age, the respondents had categorically expressed their unwillingness to grant any further indulgence or accommodation to the appellant by way of settlement or otherwise.

The Bench found no justifiable ground to interfere with the well-reasoned findings recorded by the trial Court. “The findings of the trial Court are based on clear admissions, sound appreciation of legal principles, and a correct understanding of the law governing landlord-tenant relationships, particularly in the context of termination of tenancy and maintainability of counter-claims”, it said while dismissing the petition.

Cause Title: Mr. Suresh Babu C v. Mr. V. Varadarajan (Case No.: Regular First Appeal N. 1340 of 2025 (RES))

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Naveed Ahmed, Noormoham

Respondent: Senior Counsel G. Krishna Murthy, Advocate Jaysham Jayasimha Rao

Click here to read/download Order