TUSHAR HIMATLAL JANIversusJASBIR SINGH VIJAN & ORS.

                  [2025] 6 S.C.R. 414 : 2025 INSC 663

                           Tushar Himatlal Jani
                                    v.
                         Jasbir Singh Vijan & Ors.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 6636 of 2025)
                                   13 May 2025
    [Surya Kant* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]


                             Issue for Consideration
       Whether the High Court was justified in restoring the interim
       injunction in favour of Respondent No.1 in a modified term during
       the pendency of the Suit.

                                    Headnotes†
       Interim injunction – Grant of – When not proper – High Court
       restored the order of the small causes court and granted
       injunction in favour of Respondent No.1 restraining the
       appellant from dispossessing him or creating any third-party
       interest in the disputed premises – Interference with:
       Held: High Court erred in granting the injunction in favour of
       Respondent No.1 – Respondent No.1 failed to establish a prima
       facie case in his favour as the question of tenancy rights claimed
       by him is pending adjudication before the Small Causes Court –
       Balance of convenience also tilts in favour of the Appellant as the
       disputed area is merely 550 square feet out of the total area of
       22,000 square feet and the Appellant has already entered into a
       leave and license agreement with one M/s KMG Global covering a
       built-up area of 2,200 square feet – Thus, the injunction inordinately
       impeded the entire redevelopment project for a relatively small
       disputed portion – Moreover, the Appellant would suffer irreparable
       injury if the injunction is allowed to operate, given that the protracted
       delay is not only causing substantial financial losses but also
       affecting the Appellant’s contractual obligations which cannot be
       adequately compensated at a belated stage – Impugned order set
       aside. [Paras 16, 17, 19]
       Interim injunction – Grant of – Pre-requisites for – Discussed.
       [Para 15]


* Author
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                         415

            Tushar Himatlal Jani v. Jasbir Singh Vijan & Ors.


                            List of Keywords
     Interim injunction; Injunction; Tenancy rights; Tenancy dispute;
     Disputed premises; Prima facie case; Balance of convenience;
     Irreparable injury or harm; Not adequately compensable in
     damages; Small Causes Court; Impleadment; Partnership firm;
     Family Settlement Agreement; Leave and license agreement;
     Redevelopment project; Small disputed portion; Surrender of
     tenancy rights; Equities balanced.

                           Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6636 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2024 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Bombay in WP No. 763 of 2024

                        Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Amit Dhingra, Anirudh Arunkumar, Rohit
     Mahajan, M/s. Dua Associates.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Arunabh Chowdhury, Sr. Adv., Anuroop Chakravarti, Ramit Singh,
     M S Vishnu Sankar, Mitesh Parekh, Ms. Athira G Nair, M/s. Lawfic,
     C. George Thomas.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     Surya Kant, J.

     Leave granted.
2.   The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 30.07.2024
     passed by the High Court of Bombay (High Court) restraining
     the Appellant from dispossessing Respondent No. 1 or creating any
     third-party interest in the disputed premises.
3.   The facts leading to the instant appeal are that the Appellant’s father
     was the owner of a plot admeasuring 22,000 square feet bearing
     C.T.S. Nos.443(part), 451(part), 452A(part) at Vittalwadi, Ghatala
416                                                            [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       Village, Chembur, Mumbai. Out of the said area, the Appellant’s father
       leased out 11,250 square feet i.e. the subject land, to a partnership
       firm, namely M/s Silver Chem (India)/Respondent No.2, which was
       owned by the Vijan family members in 1972. It seems that upon the
       death of his father, the entire property devolved upon the Appellant.
       The Appellant terminated the above-mentioned lease agreement
       vide notice dated 11.02.2008 and, in furtherance thereof, filed Eviction
       Suit No. 119/148 of 2008 before the Small Causes Court at Bombay
       (Small Causes Court).
4.     Notably, Respondent No.1, who claims to be the legal heir of one of
       the partners of Respondent No. 2, allegedly runs a business from the
       suit structure in the name and style of M/s Asset Motors. He, thus,
       filed an Impleadment Application in the Eviction Suit, contending that
       he is a necessary and proper party whose rights would be directly
       affected by the outcome of the proceedings. Respondent No.1
       postulated his undivided share in the business of Respondent No. 2
       by virtue of a Memorandum of Understanding executed amongst
       the Vijan family members and further relied on his institution of a
       separate suit (bearing No.441/2014) before the High Court seeking
       partition of his 1/6th undivided share in all the properties owned
       and held by the Vijan family. The Small Causes Court allowed the
       impleadment application vide order dated 06.10.2016. The Appellant,
       being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, preferred a revision petition
       before the Appellate Small Causes Court, which was allowed vide
       order dated 03.05.2019, setting aside the order of impleadment.
5.     Members of the Vijan family, i.e. the partners of Respondent
       No. 2 and Respondent No. 1, purportedly entered into a Family
       Settlement Agreement on 09.06.2021 to resolve their inter se
       differences, which referred to Respondent No. 1’s entitlement to 550
       square feet area within the subject land. This Family Settlement was
       the outcome of mediation efforts facilitated by a learned Mediator
       appointed by this Court in several petitions between members of the
       Vijan family. According to Respondent No.1, the Agreement ostensibly
       provided him with an undivided share in the premises, wherein he
       claims to have been allocated 550 square feet out of the total area
       of 22,000 square feet with entitlement to ‘receive right, title, interest,
       free of any encumbrances’ therein.
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                        417

            Tushar Himatlal Jani v. Jasbir Singh Vijan & Ors.


6.   In the aftermath of this settlement, several consequential events
     unfolded. Evidently, the partners of Respondent No. 2, along with
     Respondent No.1, entered into a Lease and License Agreement
     dated 15.10.2021, with M/s KMG Global as the licensee, for a
     period of 12 months in respect of the subject land. The Appellant
     has categorically asserted that this Agreement was executed without
     his consent and knowledge. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 firm
     and its partners claimed to have surrendered their tenancy rights on
     19.10.2022 qua the subject land. Pursuant to these developments,
     Respondent No. 1 once again filed an impleadment application in
     the Eviction suit relying on the Family Settlement Agreement. He
     simultaneously lodged an application before the Registrar of Firms
     seeking recognition as a partner in Respondent No. 2 firm. Whilst
     these applications remained pending, Respondent No. 1 instituted
     a separate suit, which, according to the Appellant, was merely an
     attempt to create a paper trail of Respondent No. 1’s alleged physical
     possession of the disputed area in the subject land.
7.   It appears that following the surrender of tenancy rights by Respondent
     No. 2 and its partners, the Appellant unconditionally withdrew the
     Eviction Suit vide order dated 13.01.2023, wherein the Small Causes
     Court also rejected Respondent No. 1’s second application for
     impleadment. Consequently, the Appellant effectuated a leave and
     license agreement dated 11.04.2023 with M/s KMG Global over a
     built-up area of 2,200 square feet.
8.   Thereafter, Respondent No.1, asserting his status as one of the
     partners of Respondent No.2, on the basis of the Family Settlement
     Agreement, filed a suit bearing R.A.D. Suit No. 519/2023 before the
     Small Causes Court seeking declaration of his tenancy rights with
     respect to an undivided area of 550 square feet purportedly forming
     part of the premises leased to Respondent No. 2. Respondent No.1
     averred in this fresh suit that by virtue of his partnership status in
     Respondent No.2 as per the Family Settlement Agreement, any
     surrender of tenancy rights by Respondent No.2 firm qua the subject
     land without his signature or consent would be illegal and non-binding.
     Respondent No.1 also filed an application bearing No. Exhibit 10
     praying for interim protection in the form of his possession over the
     area measuring 550 square feet and restraining the Appellant from
     dispossessing him therefrom. The Small Causes Court, vide order
418                                                          [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       dated 27.04.2023 granted interim protection to Respondent No.1
       and subsequently confirmed the same vide order dated 10.05.2023.
       The aggrieved Appellant preferred an appeal which was allowed
       by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court vide order
       dated 20.12.2023.
9.     Respondent No.1 consequently filed Writ Petition (C) No.763/2024,
       which stands allowed and by way of impugned order, the High Court
       has restored the order dated 27.04.2023 of the Small Causes Court
       and granted injunction in favour of Respondent No. 1.
10. The aggrieved Appellant is thus before this Court.
11. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, contended
    that the impugned injunction order has effectively paralyzed the
    Appellant’s legitimate redevelopment plans, causing substantial
    financial detriment. He underscored that despite the disputed area of
    550 square feet being merely a small fragment of the entire property,
    the restraint qua this portion has brought the entire project to a grinding
    halt. He further propounded that the High Court gravely erred in issuing
    an injunction in the absence of any eviction proceedings initiated
    by the Appellant against Respondent No. 1. Mr. Divan posited that
    Respondent No. 1 lacks the locus standi to obstruct the Appellant’s
    development rights as he is neither in lawful nor actual possession
    of the subject land. It was advanced that the original tenants had
    unequivocally surrendered their tenancy rights, thereby conferring
    complete and unencumbered rights upon the Appellant to deal with
    his property.
12. Per Contra, Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel
    appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1, vigorously urged that
    the impugned order is in the nature of a simpliciter injunction not
    to dispossess Respondent No.1 from the subject property without
    due process of law and has been in force for more than 20 months
    with only a brief hiatus in the interregnum. He staunchly maintained
    that the Appellant has not filed any suit to evict Respondent No. 1,
    rather he withdrew the Eviction Suit filed against Respondent No. 2
    unconditionally vide order dated 13.01.2023. He further expounded
    that rights in the disputed property emanate from a Family Settlement
    Agreement mediated through a Mediator appointed by this Court, and
    allowing the instant petition would overturn the Consent Order passed
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                         419

            Tushar Himatlal Jani v. Jasbir Singh Vijan & Ors.


     by this Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 5587 of 2020. Mr. Chowdhury adduced
     that the putative Surrender Letter relied upon by the Appellant is ex
     facie forged and illegal, inasmuch as it is bereft of any reference to
     any area being surrendered; it is not signed by all partners; and it
     inexplicably purports to surrender valuable property rights without
     any consideration.
13. Having heard learned Senior Counsels on behalf of both the parties
    and after perusing the record, we deem it approprite to clarify at the
    outset that the issue regarding the tenancy rights of Respondent
    No. 1 or of the partners of Respondent No. 2, who happen to be
    his family members, is sub-judice before the Small Causes Court
    in R.A.D. Suit No. 519/2023. The short question that falls for our
    consideration thus is whether the High Court was justified in restoring
    the interim injunction in favour of Respondent No. 1 in a modified
    term during the pendency of the Suit.
14. The High Court has, in the impugned order, noted that Respondent
    No.1 is a tenant/joint tenant of the subject land based on the
    Appellant’s alleged admission acknowledging his possession. Mr.
    Shyam Divan, however, strongly refuted this finding, contending
    that the Appellant’s counsel had characterized Respondent No. 1
    as a rank trespasser during the course of inter-party negotiations
    and such references, made in the context of settlement discussions,
    cannot be construed as conclusive admissions for the purpose of
    granting injunction by the High Court.
15. The law governing the grant of interim injunction is well-settled. This
    Court, through a catena of decisions, has consistently held that
    before granting an interim injunction, the Court must satisfy itself of
    three essential prerequisites: firstly, the existence of a prima facie
    case in favour of the applicant evincing a reasonable probability of
    success at trial; secondly, that the balance of convenience lies in
    favour of granting the injunctive relief; and thirdly, that the applicant
    would suffer irreparable injury or harm not adequately compensable
    in damages if the injunction is refused. It is only when these three
    conditions are cumulatively fulfilled that an interim injunction ought
    to be granted.
16. Applying the principles delineated above to the facts at hand, we
    are of the considered view that the High Court erred in granting the
420                                                         [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       injunction in favour of Respondent No.1. We say so for the reason that
       the Appellant is incontrovertibly the absolute owner of the property,
       with the disputed area constituting merely a fraction of the entire
       premises. The Appellant has already entered into an agreement to
       redevelop the property. In these circumstances, the restraint imposed
       by the impugned injunction significantly circumscribes the Appellant’s
       legal right to derive commercial benefit from his property.
17. It further seems to us that Respondent No.1 has failed to establish
    a prima facie case in his favour as the question of tenancy rights
    claimed by him is pending adjudication before the Small Causes
    Court, and at this stage, material ambiguities persist regarding the
    validity of his claim. Even though Respondent No. 1 claims rights
    and partnership in the Respondent No. 2 firm through a Family
    Settlement Agreement, such contention requires deeper scrutiny,
    which can only be undertaken during the course of trial of his civil
    suit. Concerning the balance of convenience, it decidedly tilts in
    favour of the Appellant, considering that the disputed area is merely
    550 square feet out of the total area of 22,000 square feet, and the
    Appellant has already entered into a leave and license agreement
    dated 11.04.2023 with M/s KMG Global covering a built-up area of
    2,200 square feet. The injunction has thus inordinately impeded the
    entire redevelopment project for a relatively small disputed portion.
    Moreover, the Appellant would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction
    is allowed to operate, given that the protracted delay is not only
    causing substantial financial losses but also affecting the Appellant’s
    contractual obligations, which cannot be adequately compensated
    at a belated stage.
18. Conversely, Respondent No. 1 would not suffer any irremediable loss
    as his alleged tenancy rights over an area measuring 550 square
    feet can be adequately safeguarded.
19. For the reasons aforestated, we allow the instant appeal and set
    aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 30.07.2024.
    However, with a view to balance equities, the Appellant is hereby
    directed to keep one unit measuring about 550 square feet reserved
    in the developed property as a security to protect the alleged rights
    of Respondent No.1, in the event that the Suit pending before the
    Small Causes Court is decided in his favour.
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                     421

               Tushar Himatlal Jani v. Jasbir Singh Vijan & Ors.


20. We clarify that this order does not express any opinion on the merits
    of the tenancy dispute pending before the Small Causes Court. The
    said Court shall proceed to adjudicate the matter in R.A.D. Suit
    No.519/2023 in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations
    made herein and expeditiously.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey