IMAGE ADVERTISING Vs. ANAND PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for permanent injunction. The plaintiff No.2 who is the sole proprietor of plaintiff No.1 is engaged in the business of providing service relating to display of advertisements of various products. It is alleged in the plaint that defendant No.1 approached the plaintiffs and offered space on the roof/wall of his property No.1A, Lado Sarai, Near Petrol Pump, New Delhi, for Two Wall Wrap on both sides of building of size measuring 40'X15' each, for displaying advertisements for customers of the plaintiffs. An Agreement dated 27.04.2010 was executed in this behalf between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. Under the Agreement dated 27.04.2010, defendant No.1 allowed the plaintiff to put two wall on both sides of his building on payments of rent of Rs.40,000/- per month and the rent was to increase 10% every year for five years. The Agreement was to remain in force was for a period of five years and it was renewable by another five years, by mutual consent of parties. It was further agreed that during subsistence of the Agreement, defendant No.1 shall not grant permission to any other person for installation of any hoardings/neon sign and shall not allot hoardings/neon sign at the roof top of 1A Lado Sarai, near Petrol Pump, New Delhi. Since MCD allows wall wraps only on commercial buildings or on notified roads where building commercial tax/conversion charges are paid, conversion charges amounting to Rs.9,918/- was deposited by the plaintiffs with MCD, on behalf of defendant No.1. The plaintiffs also applied to MCD on 30.04.2010 for grant of permission for displaying advertisements, pursuant to the agreement between him and defendant No.1. He also deposited amounts of Rs.1,15,200/-, Rs.38,400/- and Rs.768/- with MCD for this purpose and obtained NOC from it on 09.06.2010. A pay-order of Rs.40,000/- was then given by the plaintiffs to defendant No.1 towards advance monthly rental in terms of the agreement dated 27.04.2010. However, when the display boards were sought to be installed on the site, defendant No.1 refused to allow them to be installed. It is alleged in the plaint that defendant No.1 intends to issue no objection in favour of some other person and wants to back out from the agreement executed by him with the plaintiffs on 27.04.2010.

(2.) The plaintiffs have therefore sought injunction restraining defendant No.1 from stopping him from installing the boards in terms of the agreement dated 27.04.2010. He has also sought injunction against defendant No.2 MCD, restraining it from cancelling the permission granted to him for display of advertisements vide its order dated 09.06.2010. He has also sought injunction against defendant No.2 granting permission to any other person to display advertisement on the space which is subject matter of the agreement dated 27.04.2010.

(3.) The suit has been contested by the defendants. Defendant No.1 has alleged that since the permission/NOC granted by MCD has already been withdrawn by it, the suit has become infructuous. It has also been alleged that the agreement between the parties stood determined on defendant No.1 withdrawing the no objection which he had given to MCD. He has also taken a preliminary objection that the relief sought by the plaintiffs being contrary to the provisions contained in Section 14(1)(a)(c) & (d) read with Section 41(e) of Specific Relief Act, cannot be granted. He has also claimed that the contract between the parties is a commercial contract which is determinable in nature. It has also been claimed in the written statement of defendant No.1 that the agreement dated 27.04.2010 was executed under coercion and duress. It has also been claimed by defendant No.1 that he is under no obligation to adhere to the terms of the agreement dated 27.04.2010.