ORDER
S. Jagadeesan, J.
1. The appellants have preferred these appeals against the common order of the learned Judge in C.R.P. (PD) Nos. 4207, 4206, 4205 and 4204 of 2001 wherein the suits filed by the appellants in O.S. Nos. 99, 96, 97 and 98 of 1999 respectively on the file of the learned District Munsif, Coonoor, were dismissed.
2. The appellants herein, who are the tenants under the respondent, filed the said suits for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent-Cantonment from interfering with the peaceful possession, enjoyment and cultivation of the suit schedule property until the appellants are evicted under due process of law. Though originally interim injunction was granted, the same expired on 16.8.2000 and the appellants filed applications in LA. Nos. 467, 461, 463 and 465 of 1999 in O.S.Nos. 99, 96, 97 and 98 of 1999 respectively for extension of the interim injunction. Those applications were dismissed by the learned District Munsif, Coonoor, on 1.8.2001. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal of the applications, the appellants preferred the Civil revision petitions in C.R.P. (PD) Nos. 4207, 4206, 4205 and 4204 of 2001 respectively. Though notice was served on the respondent, none represented for the respondent in the civil revision petitions. Hence, the learned Judge heard the counsel for the appellants and disposed of the revision petitions by order dated 26.4.2002. While disposing of the revision petitions, the learned Judge was of the view that since the lease in favour of the appellants expired by efflux of time, the appellants have no locus standi to seek for a decree of injunction as prayed for. Further, as there was no interim injunction in favour of the appellants, the suits have become infructuous and consequently, by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the learned Judge dismissed the suits. As against the said order, the present appeals had been filed.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for appellants that even though there is no interim order in favour of the appellants from 16.8.2000, the suits cannot become infructuous. The main relief in the suits is that the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the appellants shall not be disturbed/interfered with by the respondent without due process of law. Even in a case of expiry of the lease by efflux of time, the appellants/lessees are the persons who are in possession of the leasehold property and as such, their possession cannot be disturbed unlawfully. In case, if the appellants succeed in the suits, they will be entitled to continue to be in possession of the property, unless and until the appellants are evicted by the process of law. Hence, the dismissal of the suits by the learned Judge cannot be sustained.
4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for respondent vehemently contended that the suits having been dismissed by the learned Judge by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no appeal would He and as such, the appeals are liable to be dismissed in limine as not maintainable. Apart from that, it is the contention of the learned counsel for respondent that the respondent took possession of the property in September 2002, i.e., after the dismissal of the civil revision petitions.
5. We carefully considered the above contentions of both the learned counsel. The admitted facts are that the appellants filed the suits in O.S.Nos. 99, 96, 97 and 98 of 1999 respectively on the file of the District Munsif, Coonoor, for interim injunction, restraining the respondent from interfering with their possession, unless under due process of law. Their case is that they are the tenants under the respondent and by taking advantage of the expiry of lease by efflux of time, the respondent is trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the appellants unlawfully. They also obtained an order of interim injunction which was in force for sometime. Thereafter, the appellants filed I.A.Nos. 467, 461, 463 and 465 of 1999 respectively for extension of the interim injunction. The learned District Munsif, Coonoor, dismissed the same by order dated 1.8.2001 as against which, the revision petitions were filed.
6. In the revision petitions, it is for the learned judge to consider as to whether the order of the learned District Munsif is correct or not in merely dismissing the applications filed for extension of interim injunction. In fact the learned judge, by expiry of the interim injunction. If the appellants are able to establish that they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property and their possession is to be safeguarded unless and until the possession is recovered through due process of law, the appellants have got a right in the suits. Hence, merely because the injunction had not been extended, it cannot be said that the suits themselves have become infructuous. Equally, by expiry of the lease, it cannot be said that the suits have become infructuous. In case, if the appellants are able to establish that they are in possession by holding over, they may be entitled for some relief. It is a matter to be decided in the suits. When that be so, we are of the view that the learned judge is not correct in dismissing the suits by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. The learned counsel for respondent further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Kanhaiyalal Agrawal and Ors. v. Factory Manager, Gwalior Sugar Company Ltd., to support his contention that the appeals are not maintainable, as the order impugned in the appeals was passed by the learned Judge by exercising the Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. While placing reliance on the precedents, it is for the Court to consider the facts and circumstances of the cases under which such orders were passed. Without going into the facts and circumstances, it is not possible for the Court to follow the precedents as if they are binding under all circumstances. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent, the Madhya Pradesh High Court disposed of the writ petition against the order of the Industrial Tribunal. Though the writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same was converted into Article 227 and was disposed of. Hence, the Supreme Court held thai as against the order of the learned single Judge exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no appeal would lie. In the case on hand, there is no lis of the suits is for consideration before the learned judge. Only the order in the interlocutory applications filed by the appellants for extension of the interim injunction was under consideration before the learned Judge. In our view, the learned judge has assumed jurisdiction to withdraw the suits and to dispose of the same by exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent has no relevance to the facts of the present case.
8. We are unable to appreciate the conduct of the respondent in absenting themselves in the civil revision petitions after having received the notice. Not only they refrained from appearing before this Court in the civil revision petitions, after the dismissal of the civil revision petitions, it is pertinent to note that taking advantage of the same, the respondent took possession of the disputed property from the appellants. In that case, till November 2002, the appellants were in possession. Hence, neither the dismissal of the civil revision petitions nor the dismissal of the applications filed for extension of interim injunction or the expiry of the original injunction order would make it clear that the appellants were in possession of the suit property on the date of the order. When that be so, the right of the appellants is alive on the date of dismissal of the suits by the learned judge as their possession on that date is admitted one. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the suits ought not to have been dismissed a if they have become infructuous. Hence, the order of the learned judge so far as the dismissal of the suits alone is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the appeals are allowed only to that extent. The suits in O.S. NOs. 99, 96, 97 and 98 of 1999 respectively on the file of the District Munsif, Coonoor, are restored to file and the learned District Munsif, Coonoor, is directed to dispose of the same on merits.
9. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos. 18797 to 18800 of 2002 are closed.
10. That the Order of this Court in CRP.No. 4206 of 2001 so far as the dismissal of the suit alone be and hereby is set aside.
11. That the suit in O.S.No.96 of 99 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Coonoor, be and hereby is restored to file.
12. That the District Munsif, Coonoor be and hereby is directed to dispose of the same on merits and
13. That there be no costs in this Appeal.