No need for eviction suit once possession decided: HC

Srinagar, Dec 5: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has ruled that defendants are not required to file a fresh eviction suit once a court decides that the plaintiff has no prima facie case to remain in possession.

“It is clear that the requirement of due process of law gets fulfilled once a person in possession brings a suit for injunction against a person who interferes in his possession and his rights are determined in the said suit,” a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar said.

The Court held this while upholding orders by trial and appellate courts rejecting a shop-occupant’s plea, seeking protection of his possession.

“The defendants don’t need to bring a fresh suit for eviction against the plaintiff once in a suit for injunction filed by the plaintiffs against defendants, the Court determines that the plaintiff does not have a prima facie case in his favour,” the bench observed.

The plaintiff had filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction, claiming he purchased the land and constructed two shops after paying Rs 4.50 lakh to the respondent in 2009. He further claimed that he was the absolute owner and had been running a bakery business there.

The respondents, however, denied any sale transaction, stating instead that the plaintiff was a tenant, who had paid an advance rent of Rs 3.92 lakh. They claimed rent arrears were pending and argued that the plaintiff was attempting to assert false ownership.

“In this view of the matter, even if the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, once the learned trial Court and the Appellate Court have rightly come to the conclusion that he has failed to establish a prima facie case in his favour, he cannot retain his possession over the suit property and his possession cannot be protected till such time the defendants obtain a decree of eviction against him,” the bench said.

The defendants, the court said, are entitled to use “reasonable force” to evict the plaintiff from the suit.

“The plaintiff cannot have the benefit of a protection order from the Court, because he has failed to prima facie establish his right to remain in possession of the suit property,” the bench added.