HINDI PRINTING PRESS Vs. MANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present common order will deals with two applications, one by the plaintiff under Order-12, Rule-6 CPC being I.A. 13496/2009 and the other I.A. No. 565/2010, moved by the defendant for rejection of the plaint under Order-7, Rule-11 CPC.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff seeks a decree for possession against the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit property, being portion of a basement of A45, Naraina Industrial Estate, Phase-II, measuring 2700 sq. ft. (hereafter referred to as suit premises). The plaintiff also seeks other reliefs including a decree for Rs. 43,648/- towards alleged arrears of license fee as well as decree for mesne profits/damages w.e.f. 6.11.2008 till delivery of possession and costs.

(3.) The suit averments are that the plaintiff entered into an arrangement recorded in a document styled as license agreement on 27.09.2001 whereby the suit premises were given to the defendant for business purposes; the initial license fee agreed upon was Rs. 4,200/- per month. It is also contended that a service agreement was simultaneously signed, in which the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 7,800/- to the plaintiff each month, and the plaintiff agreed to work for the defendant during the subsistence of the license arrangement. The license agreement was in force for eleven months. The plaintiff submits that after the expiry of the said period, the defendant continued in the premises and increased the license fee from time to time. It is submitted that as of July, 2008, the license fee paid each month (for the premises and the terms of the Service agreement) together amounted to Rs. 20,460/-. The plaintiff alleges that since it wanted the premises back, a notice was caused to be issued to the defendant on 21.07.2008, claiming vacation of the premises. The plaintiff further states that another legal notice was issued on 18.10.2008 demanding the vacant possession of the premises, after expiry of 15 days of the notice period. Complaining that the defendants did not comply with the demands, the Suit was filed for the relief claimed.