For relief of injunction, petitioner must show possession of property: Judge

In order to seek relief of injunction, the petitioner is duty-bound to show that it is in physical possession of the suit property on the date the petition is filed. Unless a party/person is not in possession of the piece of land, it cannot be protected from being interfered by the respondents.

Observing this, a local court has dismissed an application filed by a partnership firm, M/s Ananda Hospitalities, seeking interim directions to restrain M/s Ayaan Foods  and Elante Mall from evicting Satva Sky Bar from the mall.

The firm also prayed that the respondents be restrained from locking or interfering in the supply of electricity.

M/s Ananda Hospitalities, in the application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, said M/s Ayaan Foods and  M/s CSJ Infrastructure Private Limited signed an agreement regarding leasing out unit nos. 302 and 304 for running a food court, with a stipulation that M/s Ayaan Foods can sublease a part of their share on leave-and-licence basis to a third party.

The petitioner inked an agreement with M/s Ayaan Foods and agreed to run a food court on the third floor on the payment of licence fees after paying Rs 10 lakh as refundable security in the name of Satva Sky Bar.

The firm said on June 26, 2024, the staff and employees of the firm were stopped by security guards from entering the premises. They were informed that the mall management had given them instructions to deny entry to any employee working at the food court.

They also removed all the material lying in their outlet on the instructions of respondents M/s Ayaan Foods. In view of this, they filed an application seeking interim directions for restraining the respondents, or their agents, from interfering, disturbing or forcibly or illegally evicting the petitioner from the suit property, except in due course of law.

On the other hand , Mohit Sareen, counsel of M/s Ayaan Foods opposed the application for stay, saying that the petitioner was not in possession of the suit property in any capacity, so the suit for injunction was not maintainable.

Ashwani Kumar, Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, said in order to seek relief of injunction, the petitioner was duty-bound to show that he was in possession of the suit property, and the petitioner had failed to place on record any documentary evidence.