The Supreme Court overturned a High Court injunction order, emphasizing the strict requirements for granting interim relief under civil law. The Court held that the respondent failed to establish a prima facie case of tenancy rights, while the balance of convenience favored the appellant-owner. The judgment reaffirmed that injunctions cannot paralyze property rights without clear evidence of legal entitlement, though it safeguarded the respondent’s potential claim by directing reservation of 550 sq ft pending the trial court’s final decision. The ruling clarified that settlement discussions cannot substitute legal proof of tenancy.
Facts Of The Case:
The case involves a property dispute over a 22,000 sq ft plot in Chembur, Mumbai, originally owned by appellant Tushar Jani’s father. In 1972, 11,250 sq ft was leased to partnership firm M/s Silver Chem (Respondent No. 2), owned by the Vijan family. After terminating the lease in 2008, Jani filed an eviction suit against the firm. Respondent No. 1 (Jasbir Vijan), claiming to be a legal heir of a partner, sought impleadment based on a 2021 Family Settlement Agreement that allegedly granted him 550 sq ft rights. The Small Causes Court initially allowed his impleadment (2016) but was reversed in revision (2019). Post a disputed tenancy surrender by the firm (2022), Jani withdrew the eviction suit and entered a new lease agreement for redevelopment. Respondent No. 1 then filed a fresh suit (2023) asserting tenancy rights over 550 sq ft and obtained an injunction from the Small Causes Court, later set aside by the Appellate Court but restored by the Bombay High Court (2024). The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the injunction, finding no prima facie tenancy proof, but directed Jani to reserve 550 sq ft pending the trial court’s decision, balancing property rights with potential claims.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of the case began with the appellant filing Eviction Suit No. 119/148 of 2008 before the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, seeking possession of the leased property from M/s Silver Chem. Respondent No. 1 applied for impleadment in 2016, which was initially allowed but later set aside in revision by the Appellate Small Causes Court in 2019. Following a disputed Family Settlement Agreement (2021) and purported surrender of tenancy rights by the original lessees (2022), the appellant withdrew the eviction suit in January 2023. Respondent No. 1 then filed R.A.D. Suit No. 519/2023 claiming tenancy rights over 550 sq ft and secured an interim injunction from the Small Causes Court in April 2023, later overturned by the Appellate Court in December 2023. The Bombay High Court restored the injunction in July 2024 through Writ Petition (C) No. 763/2024, prompting the appellant’s appeal to the Supreme Court. The apex court’s May 2025 judgment set aside the High Court’s order, lifting the injunction but preserving Respondent No. 1’s contingent claim by directing reservation of 550 sq ft pending the trial court’s final decision in the ongoing suit.
Read Also: No Bail for Accused in India’s Largest Heroin Seizure Case: Supreme Court on NDPS and UAPA Act
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several critical observations while adjudicating the property dispute. First, it emphasized that interim injunctions require strict satisfaction of three conditions: (a) prima facie case, (b) balance of convenience, and (c) irreparable injury – none of which were met here. The Court noted Respondent No. 1’s failure to establish tenancy rights beyond a Family Settlement Agreement that required further judicial scrutiny. It observed that the High Court erred in treating settlement discussions as admissions of tenancy, clarifying that such negotiations lack evidentiary value for determining rights. Significantly, the bench highlighted that property owners cannot be restrained indefinitely based on unproven claims, especially when the disputed area (550 sq ft) was negligible compared to the total property (22,000 sq ft) and was stalling redevelopment. However, the Court balanced this with a safeguard directive to reserve the 550 sq ft portion pending trial, acknowledging the need to protect potential rights without impeding the owner’s legitimate development plans. The judgment reiterated that injunctions must not weaponize unadjudicated claims to paralyze property rights.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Bombay High Court’s injunction order in its judgment dated 13 May 2025. The bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that Respondent No. 1 (Jasbir Vijan) failed to establish the triple-test for interim relief – prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. While recognizing the appellant’s absolute ownership rights, the Court vacated the injunction that had stalled redevelopment of the 22,000 sq ft Chembur property. However, in a balanced approach, it directed the appellant to reserve 550 sq ft in the developed project as security for Respondent No. 1’s pending tenancy claim in R.A.D. Suit No. 519/2023 before the Small Causes Court. The judgment clarified that the Family Settlement Agreement required proper judicial determination and could not, by itself, justify injunctive relief. Crucially, the Court decoupled settlement negotiations from evidentiary admissions, emphasizing that such discussions cannot substitute legal proof of tenancy. The ruling prioritized property rights over unproven claims while safeguarding contingent interests through the reservation clause, ensuring neither party suffered irreversible prejudice during the trial’s pendency.
Case Details:
Case Title: Tushar Himatlal Jani vs. Jasbir Singh Vijan & Ors. Citation: 2025 INSC 663 (Supreme Court of India) Civil Appeal No.:n(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2657/2025) Date of Judgment: 13th May 2025 Bench (Judges): Justice Surya Kant & Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Download The Judgement Here