In the instant case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled that separate suits can be filed for possession and recovery of dues when the causes of action are different and the Plaintiff has reserved their rights to claim the outstanding amounts separately.
On 25.11.2008, a Leave and License Agreement was entered into between the Uniworld Logistics Private Limited (“Appellant”) and Indev Logistics Private Limited (“Respondent”). The said Leave and License Agreement was superseded by another agreement dated 1.12.2010 whereby the Appellant became the licensee in respect of the warehouse on a monthly license fee of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) with an escalation clause.
Thereafter, the Appellant defaulted on the payment of storage charges. As such, vide its notice dated 27.11.2014, (“Termination Notice”) the Respondent terminated the said license claiming dues towards storage charges, damages and directing the Appellant to vacate the warehouse premises within a period of two (2) months from the date of the receipt of the said notice. Vide its letter dated 18.12.2014, the Appellant replied to the aforesaid Termination Notice and refuted the claims and allegations made therein. Consequently, the Respondent filed a suit before the Court of District Munsif, Sriperumbudur (“Trial Court”) for permanent injunction and possession of the warehouse premises, reserving its right to claim the outstanding dues separately.
Subsequently, Respondent sought leave under Order II Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”) to file a separate suit for the recovery of the arrears which was granted by the Ld. Trial Court by its order dated 24.11.2015. Thereafter, the Appellant challenged the said order dated 24.11.2015 (granting leave) in the Hon’ble Madra High Court contending that the second suit was barred under Order II Rule 2(2) of CPC. However, the Ld. Trial Court and the Hon’ble Madras High Court found that the two suits were based on different causes of action and that the Respondent neither relinquished its claim nor omitted to seek relief.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on its judgment in the matter of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited V. ATM Constructions Private Limited and held that a suit for possession and a suit for claiming damages for use and occupation of the property are based on different causes of action. Furthermore, Respondent had reserved its rights regarding its claim for outstanding dues in the first suit and had obtained leave to filed a separate suit. Hence, the second suit filed by the Respondent was maintainable. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.