Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that after the order under appeal was passed by the learned Single Judge there has been an insertion in the 'Ananda Bazar Patrika' which would show that there will also be master degree courses for computer. Relying on these materials, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the restrictive covenant contained in Clause 2.5.4. of the said Lease Deed will be violated if a school is allowed to come up on the seventh floor in the demised premises. Since this is a violation of the negative covenant, this Court should grant an order of injunction enforcing the negative covenant.

68. Now, the question is whether in view of the provisions of Section 41(h) of the SRA, the petitioners' prayer for injunction should be refused since the petitioners can obtain the relief of forfeiture of the lease and eviction of the respondents.

69. It is well-settled whether or not any remedy is an equally efficacious relief like the one which has been prayed for is a question, which has to be decided in the facts and circumstances of individual case. In the instant case, the petitioners are seeking enforcement of the restrictive covenant in the lease deed. They are not seeking an eviction of the lessee. Under Section 42 of SRA it is provided where a contract comprises an affirmative covenant coupled with a negative covenant, the fact that the Court cannot enforce the affirmative covenant shall not preclude the Court from granting an injunction to enforce the performance of the negative covenant. This is clearly the right of the petitioner at law. Therefore, in a case where there is a contract containing restrictive covenants, the Court shall restrain the breach of the restrictive covenants. This proposition of law is rather well-settled.

87. The principles of grant of injunction in the context of Section 42 of S.R.A., 1963 has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Bottling Company Ltd. v. Coca Cola Ltd. and Ors., . The learned Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court approved the grant of interim injunction in support of the negative covenant and stated the principles as follows in para 42, page 573 of the report:

"In the matter of grant of injunction, the practice in England is that where a contract is negative in nature, or contains an express negative stipulation, breach of it may be restrained by injunction and injunction is normally granted as a matter of course, even though the remedy is equitable and thus in principle a discretionary one and a defendant cannot resist an injunction simply on the ground that observance of the contract is burdensome to him and its breach would cause little or no prejudice to the plaintiff and that breach of an express negative stipulation can be restrained even though the plaintiff cannot show that the breach will cause him any loss. [See: Chitty on Contracts, 27th Edn., Vol. 1, General Principles, paragraph 27-040 at p.1310; Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 24, paragraph 992.] In India Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 prescribes that notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (e) of Section 41, where a contract comprises an affirmative agreement to do a certain act, coupled with a negative agreement, express or implied, not to do a certain act, the circumstance that the Court is unable to compel specific performance of the affirmative agreement shall not preclude it from granting an injunction to perform the negative agreement. This is subject to the proviso that the plaintiff has not failed to perform the contract so far as it is binding on him. The Court is, however, not bound to grant an injunction in every case and an injunction to enforce a negative covenant would be refused if it would indirectly compel the employee either to idleness or to serve the employer. [See: Ehrman v. Bartholomew; N.S. Golikari at p. 389.]"

88. The proviso mentioned in para 42 are not applicable here. It cannot be said that the petitioner failed to perform any part of the negative covenant in this case. Nor the enforcement of the covenant will compel any employee to idleness. It is not the case of negative covenant between an employer and employee. It is between the lessor and lessee or his assignee. Therefore, in the absence of those conditions the negative covenant should be enforced by grant of an injunction.

89. Normally, when the parties are seeking the relief of injunction on the basis of bargain between the parties, the Court should try to preserve the bargain struck between the parties. Unless the bargain struck between the parties is unconscionable or is opposed to public policy or has been entered by a party, who, under financial duress, signed on the dotted line, the bargain must be enforced by the Court. In the instant case, nothing of these things have happened. Therefore, there is no reason why the Court will not enforce the bargain by enforcing the restrictive covenant.