Introduction:

The XIX Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai, dismissed an interim injunction application filed by a plaintiff/tenant seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

The case is centered around claims of an unhindered tenancy, alleged unlawful threats of eviction, and service of a statutory notice.

Case Background & Arguments:

Plaintiff’s Case:

The plaintiff claimed he has been residing as a tenant on the ground floor (measuring 960 sq. ft.) of the suit property since 2017, paying a monthly rent of ₹500. He asserted that because he took care of the 1st defendant’s elderly mother during her lifetime, the rent was never increased. Following her passing on January 2, 2026, tensions arose when the 1st defendant issued a legal notice on February 7, 2026, alleging three years of unpaid rent.

The plaintiff contended that despite WhatsApp assurances from the 1st defendant that he would not be evicted, the other defendants threatened him, commenced construction work on the eastern side causing prejudice, and threatened to cut off his water and electricity connections. Consequently, he filed an interlocutory application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for an interim injunction.

Defendants’ Stand & Mr. Rahul Jagannathan’s Arguments:

The defendants strongly resisted the application through a detailed written statement and counter arguments.

Representation: The respondents/defendants were represented by the learned counsel Mr. Rahul Jagannathan assisted by Ms Kavya Darshni V
Core Submissions by Mr. Rahul Jagannathan assisted by Ms Kavya Darshni V:

• Lack of Prima Facie Evidence: Rahul Jagannathan pointed out that the plaintiff failed to produce any rent agreements or rent receipts to substantiate his status as a lawful tenant for the current period, or to back up his claims of paying the rent.
• Statutory Notice & Due Process:It was argued that the defendants had already invoked due process of law by issuing a formal legal notice on February 7, 2026, calling upon the plaintiff to vacate within 15 days, rendering the suit premature and untenable.
• Unfounded Allegations: Rahul Jagannathan strongly contested the plaintiff’s oral assertions regarding the alleged disconnection of electricity and water supplies, emphasizing that the plaintiff failed to place any corroborative documents or proof on record to substantiate such claims.
• Identical Reliefs:Mr Rahul also highlighted that the interim relief sought by the plaintiff mirrored the final relief prayed for in the main suit, making the interlocutory application unsustainable.

Findings of the Court:

The Court concurred with the defence arguments presented by counsel Mr. Rahul Jagannathan, noting the following key legal points:

1. Absence of Prima Facie Case: The plaintiff failed to produce rent receipts or lease agreements to prove his ongoing tenancy or to counter the effect of the statutory notice dated February 7, 2026, which pre-dated the filing of the suit on April 27, 2026.
2. Unsupported Claims: The allegations regarding the disconnection of basic amenities (water and electricity) lacked evidentiary backing under Section 63A of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam or through any other reliable documentation.
3. Identical Relief Limitation: Granting the interim injunction would amount to granting the final relief sought in the main suit itself.

Ruling:

Finding no prima facie case or balance of convenience in Favor of the plaintiff, the Court dismissed I.A. No. 2/2026 in O.S. No. 2011/2026 without costs.