Research & Argumentative Blogs

Legal Background

Under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, service of a valid notice under Section

6(4) (equivalent to Section 13(6) of the 1956 Act) is generally a condition precedent for filing

an eviction suit on certain grounds.

● Normally, the landlord must serve a notice to quit and only thereafter institute the suit.

● However, if the tenant admits receipt of notice or gives a reply to that notice, courts

have repeatedly held that the requirement of producing the original notice is not fatal.

In our Case

● the eviction notice is lost, but

● The tenant replied in writing to that notice.

● This reply itself amounts to admission of service. The court will not insist on the

production of the original notice if its existence and service can otherwise be proved.

Judicial Precedents (if helpful for argument then have to discuss with Mihir

Sir)

1. Kalyanpur Lime Works Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1954 SC 165

○ Once the notice is admitted or acted upon, non-production of the original is not

fatal.

2. Bhagabandas Agarwalla v. Bhagwandas Kanu & Ors., (2001) 9 SCC 157

○ Admission of receipt of notice (including by reply) is sufficient compliance; tenant

cannot dispute validity later.

3. Collector of Customs v. East India Commercial Co. Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 1124

○ Admission in pleadings/documents can substitute strict proof.

4. Calcutta High Court decisions under W.B. Premises Tenancy Act:

○ Santosh Kumar Mondal v. Nandalal Chakraborty, 1987 (1) CHN 445 – held

that once the tenant admits notice (by reply or conduct), technical defects in

notice or loss thereof will not bar maintainability.

○ Ranjit Kumar Roy v. Anil Chandra Bhattacharya, 2002 (2) CHN 167 – service

of notice admitted → eviction suit maintainable even if the landlord cannot

produce original notice.

Submission Strategy

● That reply to notice = admission of receipt, so requirement of Section 6(4) is fulfilled.

● We can argue that technical loss of the original notice cannot defeat substantive

rights when tenant has already acknowledged it.

● We can also Cite S.58 of Indian Evidence Act – admitted facts need not be proved.

● We can also Cite Order VIII Rule 5 CPC – facts not specifically denied or admitted in

reply are deemed admitted.

Complete Guide to Leading Injunction Citations: What Every Litigant Should Know

By: Pratik Gayen Advocate, Civil Lawyer in Kolkata

Understanding injunction jurisprudence is crucial for property owners, tenants, contractors, and those facing disputes over possession, construction, or reputation. Below is an expert analysis of major injunction case citations from Indian courts, enhanced by insights from Pratik Gayen Advocate, a recognized leader in civil litigation and injunction matters from Kolkata.[1][2][3][4]

1. AIR 2000 P.H. 34

Injunction restrained the raising of a factory in a residential area without municipal permission, even after the original suit was withdrawn. This case forms a precedent for upholding regulatory zoning through judicial intervention.

2. AIR 2000 Or 93

A teacher, evicted from official accommodation, sought injunction on grounds of unpaid dues. The injunction was denied since there was no service condition linking accommodation to pending dues, separating employment entitlements from property rights.

3. 17 CLJ 1988 Cal 25

On specific performance suits, courts protected contractual rights during litigation by applying principles of lis pendens and, where relevant, injunctions to preserve the status quo.

4. 85 CWN 958, 2010 (2) CLJ 110

Courts made clear that police aid is available for enforcing injunctions under Section 151 CPC if orders are violated, strengthening enforcement mechanisms for interim judicial relief.

5. 87 CWN 400

If a defendant appeals an interim injunction, the trial court still has the power to hear related applications. This upholds litigants’ access to remedies even when appeals are pending.

6. AIR 1983 SC

Lower courts cannot grant injunctions that prevent the execution of valid decrees, supporting finality and the authority of judgments.

7. 1993 (1) CLJ 303

Personal contracts generally cannot be specifically enforced by injunction; the court cautioned against multiple proceedings or technical barriers for justice.

8. AIR 1993 All 117

Appellate courts may allow defendants to conditionally undertake actions (like construction), provided they agree to comply with final outcomes, ensuring remedies for both parties during litigation.

9. 1995 (1) CLJ 246

Ex parte ad-interim injunctions granted without reasoning should generally stand, protecting urgent equitable reliefs unless grounds exist to set aside.

10. AIR 1994 Gau 105

Injunctions against public authorities must balance public interest with private rights—a principle evident in environmental, civic, and urban disputes.

11. AIR 1972 SC 2299

A plaintiff can only claim an injunction against a party with an inferior title, not against the legal property owner. This forms the backbone of property injunction litigation.

12. 2012 (3) CHN 1; 1986 Kat 77; AIR 2004 SC 4609

Caretakers or trespassers cannot secure injunctions against the true owner; only due legal process can deprive someone of possession.

13. AIR 1989 SC 997; AIR 2009 Cal 210

No court aid for those with wrongful possession. If a trespasser ousts a true owner, injunction is not available to shield the trespasser.

14. AIR 1998 Del 185

If a sale deed is not executed and possession not delivered, courts will not restrain the seller from actions (like construction) over the property.

15. AIR 1999 SC 2322

An appellate court must provide detailed reasons when upsetting an injunction order due to alleged errors in primary fact-finding.

16. AIR 1999 SC 2171

Builders cannot bypass plaintiffs’ rights by merely sanctioning plans. Admission before a registrar is substantial; detailed documentary compliance is required.

17. AIR 1999 MP 205

Statutory bodies seeking an injunction to halt illegal construction cannot be refused on the basis that they have demolition powers; court remedy is valid.

18. 2004 (1) CHN 448 at 449

Suppression of facts by a party can justify outright dismissal of an interlocutory order, reinforcing duties of candor and good faith in court.

19. 1992 (2) CLJ 472

Whenever prior refusals of injunctions are concealed, the grant or denial must be considered with complete transparency for the objectives of justice.

20. AIR 1994 SC 853

Withholding vital documents in litigation is interpreted as fraud upon the court, thus invalidating any relief secured.

21. AIR 1993 Ker 62

An ex parte injunction cannot be enforced on its own; subsequent judicial validation is critical for enforceability.

22. AIR 2000 AP 214

Police assistance can be directly ordered for implementing injunctions without recourse to contempt under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC.

23. AIR 2005 SC 104

Appellate courts may not change the status quo lightly, recognizing the importance of continuity and certainty in party positions.

24. AIR 2000 Kant 325

Post-licence expiry, a licensor regains the right to eject the licensee and prevent their occupation.

25. AIR 2000 SC 3032

Ex-parte interim injunctions must be followed by a final order within 30 days, ensuring prompt judicial review and no misuse of temporary orders.

26. AIR 2000 Mad 512

Courts can grant interim mandatory injunctions, including for removal of newly constructed obstructions, preserving the status quo until case resolution.

27. AIR 2000 Mad 313

When ground floor use for commercial activity was already agreed, marginal inconvenience doesn’t warrant an injunction.

28. AIR 2000 Raj 214

Parties joined to a suit after an interim injunction still have the right to be heard regarding their affected interests.

29. AIR 2000 HP 116

A co-sharer’s request to restrain construction by another co-sharer was denied, confirming joint property rights must be balanced against exclusive actions.

30. AIR 2001 Mad 119; AIR 2008 SC 681

Interim injunctions can suppress or prohibit defamatory publications, offering recourse against reputational harm.

31. AIR 2001 Kant 395

Courts must clarify exactly what “status quo” means whenever an order is imposed, removing ambiguity for enforcement.

32. AIR 2001 Knt 57

Only the party who is actually in possession may be granted an injunction protecting such possession.

33. AIR 2001 PH 112; AIR 2006 Mad 197

Defamation injunctions were upheld, confirming courts’ readiness to intervene where reputational harm is imminent.

34. AIR 1994 Cal 229

A refusal to grant injunction is appealable, but revisional challenges were not upheld, streamlining appeal remedies.

35. AIR 2001 Mad 225

Further affirmation of injunction against publication of defamatory material.

36. AIR 2005 Pat 101

Civil injunctions restraining TV programs for public interest alone are not maintainable—there must be a legal basis.

37. AIR 2001 Del 307

Parties to a failed compromise can ask for restoration of prior status quo, preventing disadvantage due to non-implementation.

38. AIR 2001 Gau 133

Temporary injunctions based on speculative discomfort (e.g., loss of light or air) may be denied if no strong case is made.

39. 2010 (1) CHN SC 227

If a prima facie case is not made, neither balance of convenience nor irreparable harm justifies an injunction.

40. 2010 (1) Cal CHN 597

The foundation for granting an injunction is always a strong prima facie case, not merely hardship or inconvenience.

...Further citations continue with similar structured explanations, covering all nuances regarding property co-sharers, enforcement of negative covenants, franchisee agreements, construction and parking disputes, restoration of status quo, landlord-tenant issues, and more. Each point provides legal clarity and practical understanding for litigants and lawyers.

Why Choose Pratik Gayen Advocate for Injunction Cases?

Pratik Gayen Advocate is one of Kolkata’s most respected civil lawyers, frequently handling injunction, property, and declaratory suits with deep expertise and client-oriented strategies. With a track record spanning property disputes, contract litigation, and urgent court reliefs, Pratik Gayen is trusted by individuals and businesses for high-stakes matters. Whether the issue involves property protection, construction disputes, or reputation defense, his team is equipped to deliver timely and effective legal solutions.[2][3][4][1]

For consultation or case assessment regarding injunctions in Kolkata:
Contact Pratik Gayen Advocate, 35D Middle Road, Garfa, Santoshpur, Kolkata, West Bengal 700075, Phone: +91 9051442439, Email: adv.pratikgayen@gmail.com.[3][5][4][1]

This discussion equips readers with actionable understanding of all key injunction precedents across Indian civil law, ensuring informed decisions and appropriate legal representation in every kind of injunction dispute. 

LEGAL OVERVIEW AND NOTES

A flat allotted by a co-operative housing society—even if declared impartible (i.e., incapable of being physically partitioned among heirs or co-owners)—contains shares or interests that can be purchased or sold among co-owners. This is explicitly reinforced by the Calcutta High Court judgment in Atanu Ranjan Ghosh v. Arup Ranjan Ghosh and supported by the legal scheme of the Partition Act, 1893.

Gist from Calcutta High Court (Atanu Ranjan Ghosh case)

• Impartibility and Transferability:
  The interest of a member in a co-operative housing society flat is heritable and transferable like any other property, even though the flat is declared not subject to partition. Thus, while the physical flat itself is impartible, the share or value corresponding to a co-owner’s (or heir’s) interest can be sold, relinquished, or purchased by another co-owner or heir.

• Nominee’s Rights and Duty:
  If a member nominates a person, the nominee gains membership, but only as a representative of the deceased’s estate. The nominee must pay the value of other heirs'/co-owners' shares if he keeps exclusive possession, because all heirs have a right in the flat's value (even if they cannot physically partition it).

• Remedy When Flat Cannot Be Partitioned:
  The court held that in impartible property, such as a co-operative society flat, if one party is allotted the property due to impartibility, they are liable to pay other co-owners their proportionate share of its value. This is, in effect, a sale of share from one co-owner to another.

Position under the Partition Act, 1893

• Court-Ordered Sale Instead of Partition:
  The Partition Act empowers the court, where physical partition is not possible (impartible property), to order a sale of the property and distribution of proceeds among co-owners. If one co-owner requests sale (Section 2), others may apply to buy the share at court-determined value (Section 3).

• Right to Buy Out Co-owner's Share:
  Even in cases of impartibility, other co-owners can ask for leave to buy the share of the party seeking a sale. The court will fix a valuation, and the share can thus be sold to other co-owners rather than an outside purchaser.

• No Legal Obstacle to Sale of Share:
  Various judgments and authoritative commentaries confirm that the undivided or impartible share of a property can be sold or transferred; only the physical property cannot be divided.

Section 44, Transfer of Property Act

• Statutory Right to Sell Undivided Share:
  Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 expressly allows a co-owner to sell their undivided share, and the transferee becomes a co-owner with all rights attached, subject to the limitation that physical possession of a specific part cannot be claimed until partition.

Summary Table - 

Property Type - Impartible (Co-op Flat, etc)

Partition Allowed? - No (physical)

Share Sale Allowed? -  Yes (monetary)

Judicial Remedy - Value/share paid to co-owners/heirs

In conclusion:
Even if a flat is legally impartible, the ownership share or its value can be bought or sold among co-owners. The court may order one co-owner to pay the others for their undivided share rather than partition the property, effectively treating the transaction as a sale of share between co-owners—fully supported in law by the Partition Act and the Transfer of Property Act. J_2008_SCC_OnLine_Cal_481_AIR_2009_Cal_76_2008_3_CHN_9