HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1341 of 2022 Court No. - 50 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Arvind Prabodh Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC has been filed challenging the order dated 21.05.2022 whereby the injunction application preferred by the appellant as a plaintiff came to be rejected. 3. The facts that emerge from the documents on record reveal that Suit No.395 of 2021 was filed alleging that the plaintiff - the appellant herein - is in possession of a property by virtue of a registered agreement dated 22.11.2010 which was granted by the respondents/land owner to the plaintiff for running a brick kiln for a period of 8 years. The said agreement subsisted till 21.05.2018. Subsequently, in terms of the suit it was claimed that as some money was required by respondents/owner, an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- and some other amount was paid to the owner. Total Rs.2,00,000/- was paid which was admitted by the owner by virtue of a notary agreement dated 04.04.2013. It was further stated that subsequently an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was further given and based upon the said amounts given, the lease stood extended up to 21.05.2026. 4. Based upon the aforesaid, an injunction was sought seeking a decree of mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the functioning of the brick kiln and from evicting the plaintiff except in accordance with law The said suit was contested by the owner. After exchange of pleadings in the injunction application, an order came to be Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Hausihla Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Arvind Prabodh Dubey Jai Ram Das .....Appellant(s) Digvijay Singh And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) passed on 21.05.2012 wherein a prima-facie case was not found in favour of the plaintiff and findings that there was no prima-facie case, there was no balance of convenience or irreparable loss which could not be compensated in terms of the money were recorded and thus, the injunction application came to be rejected. 5. Against the said order, present appeal was preferred in the year 2022. No interim order has been granted by this Court in favour of the appellant. 6. It also bears from record that some counter claim was filed by the respondents in which another order has been passed by the trial Court whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo. 7. While arguing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant could not disclose any material to suggest that the finding with regard to lack of prima-facie case is either erroneous or without substance. Admittedly, the appellant is continuing in possession after the expiry of the lease without any authority of law and based upon some oral understanding. The said understanding cannot partake the character of an agreement prescribed under the Transfer of Property Act and is also barred by virtue of Section 49 of the Registration Act. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant is ready and willing to vacate the premises if some reasonable time is granted as substantial investments have been made in erecting the brick kiln. It is prayed that three months' time be granted to vacate the premises. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the same, however, he prays that some reasonable damages should be paid by the appellant for occupation of the premises for a period of three months. 10. In view thereof, appellant is granted time to vacate the premises under his occupation being the suit property as inscribed in Suit No.395 of 2021 (New No.59 of 2022) on or before 31.08.2026, subject to the appellant filing an undertaking before the Court concerned in Suit No.59 of 2022 within three weeks from today agreeing to vacate the premises on or FAFO No. 1341 of 2022 2 before 31.08.2026 and to handover the vacant and physical possession to the landlord and to no one else and further payment of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per month as damages. 11. The said amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as damages shall be paid to the respondents or deposited in the Court concerned within a period of three months from today which shall be released in favour of the landlord. 12. In view of the said undertaking, it will be open to the trial Court to decide the said suit itself based upon the said undertaking, if so deemed appropriate. 13. The appeal stands disposed off in above terms. May 12, 2026 nishant FAFO No. 1341 of 2022 3 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad