RAMARAJU Vs. PRESIDENT SERVICE INSTITUTE AIR FORCE STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.8747/2014 on the file of XI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, being aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2014 made in I.A.No.1, rejecting the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 filed this appeal.

(2.) THE appellant/plaintiff filed the suit seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property, except due process of law and also filed an application in I.A.No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, seeking for temporary injunction restraining the defendant or their agent from interfering with the plaintiff s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the suit.

(3.) IN the plaint, it was contended that the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. As per the lease agreement dated 19.11.2012, plaintiff has taken the suit schedule property consisting of Galaxy Cinema Theatre and Restaurant along with Food Court attached to Galaxy theatre situated at Air Force Station, Jalahalli East, Bangalore for running/screening the cinema at Galaxy Theatre. As per Clause 3(a) of lease agreement, the lease period is for a period of two years from 19.11 2012 extendable up to 5 years. As per clause 3(r), the plaintiff is liable to pay sum of Rs.27,500/ - per month as per clause 3(s), Security Deposit of Rs.87,000/ - has to be deposited. As per clause 5, if there is any dispute with regard to the lease agreement, the provision has been made for appointment of an arbitrator. As per the lease agreement, after depositing security deposit, the plaintiff has taken the premises on lease. When the plaintiff took the theatre on lease, it was in very bad shape. In view of the assurance given by the respondent that the lease period would be extended upto 5 years, the plaintiff has invested nearly Rs.40 lakhs to make fit the said theatre to run the cinemas. Clause 3(e) and (f) of the agreement provides for issuance of passes additional passes and amount payable in this regard. But there arose certain dispute with regard to clause 3(e) and 3(f). Some communication has been exchanged between the parties. In view of that the plaintiff sought for appointment of the arbitrators to settle the dispute as per clause 5 of the lease agreement and requested the respondent to appoint a government servant as a sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. In spite of the said request, the respondent appointed a Group Captain P.S.Kaushik as a sole arbitrator, who is none other than the employee of the respondent. Without holding the any enquiry, the respondent tried to take possession of the property. In view of that, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking for permanent injunction and also filed I.A.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking for temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the above suit.