Interim injunction may enforce a lease user covenant despite rent control remedies and withdrawal of an earlier suit.

A clear and specifically accepted lease covenant restricting user of premises may be enforced by interim injunction to prevent breach, even if rent control eviction remedies are also available. The Court treated the later order as a permissible clarification of the earlier interim protection of possession, because it did not alter possession rights but only required compliance with the agreed user condition. Withdrawal of an earlier suit did not bar the landlord from seeking or resisting interim relief in the later proceedings, as the earlier suit had become infructuous and no liberty to file afresh had been granted. The tenant-company's challenge was therefore rejected and the lease condition was sustained pending suit disposal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order dated 28 May 1982 amounted to a review or modification of the earlier interim order dated 27 May 1982. (ii) Whether the landlord was entitled, by way of interim injunction, to require the tenant-company to comply with the agreed user restriction in the lease and whether withdrawal of an earlier suit barred such relief.

Issue (i): Whether the order dated 28 May 1982 amounted to a review or modification of the earlier interim order dated 27 May 1982.

Analysis: The earlier order had protected the tenant-company's possession while recognising that the company was bound to use the premises in accordance with the lease terms. The later order did not take away that protection or alter the possession aspect. It only clarified that the company must abide by the specific user condition already accepted in the lease. Such clarification was treated as consistent with the earlier order and as a measure to avoid breach of peace, not as a fresh adjudication or review.

Conclusion: The order dated 28 May 1982 was not a review or impermissible modification of the order dated 27 May 1982.

Issue (ii): Whether the landlord was entitled, by way of interim injunction, to require the tenant-company to comply with the agreed user restriction in the lease and whether withdrawal of an earlier suit barred such relief.

Analysis: The lease contained a clear stipulation that the premises were to be used only for the residence of the named employee unless the landlord agreed otherwise. The Court held that Order 39 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits an injunction to restrain breach of contract and allows the Court to impose fitting terms while granting interim relief. The existence of a remedy under rent control law for eviction did not prevent the landlord from enforcing the contractual user restriction by civil action. The withdrawal of the earlier suit under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not bar the landlord's defence in the present proceedings, particularly since the earlier suit had become infructuous on the facts then prevailing and no liberty to file afresh had been sought or granted.

Conclusion: The landlord was entitled to insist on compliance with the lease condition, and the withdrawal of the earlier suit did not prevent that relief.

Final Conclusion: The tenant-company's challenge failed, and the interim limitation requiring use of the premises in accordance with the lease was sustained till disposal of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: A clear and specifically accepted covenant in a lease may be enforced by interim injunction to prevent its breach, even where eviction under rent control law remains available, and withdrawal of an earlier suit does not bar such enforcement where the earlier proceeding had become infructuous and no liberty to refile was granted.

---