ASHRAFI LAL Vs. LABH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) spondent Labh Singh was a pre-partition tenant in acquired evacuee property No. 11/2034, first floor and No. 11/2035, ground floor, in Katra Lochhu Singh, Fountain, Dr. H. G. Sen Road, Delhi. He was living in the first floor and was running a "Prern Khalsa Hotel in the ground floor as its sole proprietor. On September 6, 1966, he entered into a partnership with petitioner Ashrafi Lal and his brothers Yag Prashad and Har Prashad, agreeing that the business of Prem. Khalsa Hotel shall hence forward be carried on in the name and style of "New Standard Hotel." Labh Singh handed over to the firm all the assets of the Khalsa Hotel and possession of the premises No. 2035 for the carrying on of the business of the partnership. It was agreed that the rents of the premises shall be paid by the partnership and the premises shall constitute the property of the partnership. Ashrafi Lal has however contended that Labh Singh charged Rs. 41,000.00 in all for surrendering possession of the premises to him. In July 1972) Ashiafi Lal was registered as an occupier and employer of the premises. The telephone and electticity connections were also made in his name and the quotas of the commodities for the Hotel were also issued in his name. It appears that subsequently the relationship between the partners became strained. On somebody's complaint, the matter also came to the notice of the Managing Officer who by his order of December 29, 1979, held that Labh Singh lost his tenancy rights and was an unauthorised occupant of property No. 11/2034, and that Ashrafi Lal was an unauthorised occupant of property No. 11/2035. Labh Singh filed a suit for dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts which was dismissed on March 19, 1980, for default. It appears that a restoration application is still pending. On June 21, 1980, Ashrafi Lal also filed against his partners a suit for permanent injunction and obtained an order for an ex parte injunction on June 26, 1980. It appears to have been formally issued on June 27, 1980. The defendants were restrained from entering the property No. 11/2035, from creating any scenes or goondaism through self, agents, friends, relatives or hirelings and from interfering in any manner in the business of the plaintiff. This order was confirmed on July 3, 1980, Yag Prashad filed a complaint under Section 145 Cr. P.G. that the suit filed by Ashrafi Lal was a false one. He collected some hirelings and on the pretext of the stay order tried to throw out the belongings of the other partners and the workers. The workers lodged a report of this incident in the Kotwali Police Station under Section 380 Indian Penal Code . vide F.I.R. No. 976 dated July 3, 1980. Ashrafi Lal was taken into custody but was later on released on bail. The premises belonged to the partnership and respondent No. 1 is not in exclusive possession thereof. There was every likelihood of breach of peace. The premises may be directed to be sealed. The learned Magistrate called a report from the police. On July 8. 1980, S.H.O. Police Station Kotwali reported that besides the four parters in the concern, the workers and the hotel employees union have also joined in the fray with the result that tension is prevailing amongst all the parties and despite a sharp vigil there is every likelihood of peace being disturbed and even the possibilities of riot, arson, attempt to murder and murder cannot be ruled out.

(2.) The learned S.D.M. heard the complainant Yag Prashad at length and perused the police report and was convinced that a dispute of possession likely to cause breach of peace between the parties did exist, and drew up an order under Section 145 (1) Cr. P.C. He called upon the parties to appear in person and put in their written statements with regard to possession. Ashrafi Lal filed written statement on August 8, 1980 in which he alleged that he had purchased the hotel, was the sole proprietor, denied partnership and asserted that his brother Yag Prashad and others were his servants. Labh Singh on July 8,1980 and Yag Prashadon July l4, 1980 again made applications for attachment of the property. On July 26, 1980, Yag Prashad however turned his coat and applied for dropping of the proceedings. But on July 28, 1980, the parties fought and were arrested. On July 30, 1980, the Assistant Commissioner of Police requested the S.D.M. to take immediate action for sealing of the premises. On July 31, 1980, the police reported that there was a danger of some serious occurrence taking place and the parties concerned should be bound down. On August 8, 1980, Labh Singh and Yag Prashad again filed applications for attachment of the property. Some employees of the hotel filed an application on August 16, 1980 for withdrawal of the proceedings. On September 4, 1980, the learned S.D.M. heard arguments of both the parties and examined the documents and police report and found that the case was one of urgency and directed that the premises be attached till a competent civil court had decided the rights of the parties with respect to the person entitled to the possession thereof.

(3.) On September 6, 1980 hotel employees prayed for withdrawal of attachment. On September 15, 1933, site inspection was made by the learned S.D.M. because a complaint was made that a room has been newly constructed and occupied by Labh Singh. A revision against the order of attachment was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on September 17, 1980. Again a site inspection was undertaken on September 18 and 22. 1980, with regard to the side room. On September 26, 1980, the learned S.D.M. held that the side room was not a part of the hotel. On November 29, 1980, the appeal of Labh Singh against the order of the Managing Officer was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner. Against that order Labh Singh then made a petition to the Assistant Chief Settlement Commissioner on December 23, 1980 for reconsideration of the matter. That application is pending.