SAGAR RATNA RESTAURANTS PVT LTD Vs. TARSEEM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA Nos. 497/2014 (filed on behalf of impleaded respondent M/s. Shree Rathnam Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. to modify the order dated 17.4.2013) & 17214/2013 (under Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of the petitioner for appointment of fresh Receiver)

(2.) THE brief facts, are, an agreement dated May 01, 2005 was executed between the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and M/s. Sagar Ratna Hotels Pvt. Ltd. ('SRHP', in short) in respect of a commercial premises bearing No. 33, 35 and 36, Pocket C -9, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi situated on the ground and first floors, whereby, it was agreed by the said respondents to provide the same to SRHP for running a restaurant on the terms and conditions stipulated therein. One of the terms being that the duration of the agreement was for a period of ten years from the date of opening the restaurant, which could be increased further for such a period on the terms and conditions, as may be mutually agreed between the parties. Another important term as stipulated in Clause 19 of the said agreement is that both the parties could terminate the agreement by serving three months notice in writing in the event of there being violation of any of the terms and conditions thereof. In the case of termination, SRHP was to hand over the possession of the premises along with the fixtures etc. to the respondents. Further, one of the important term as stipulated in Clause 20 is that in the event of expiry of the agreement, the respondents could not use the name "SAGAR RATNA" or any other name identical to it, and could not continue the restaurant business for a further period of seven years. After the agreement dated May 1, 2005, another supplementary agreement dated June 17, 2011 was executed between the respondents, the petitioner herein and SRHP. By virtue of this agreement, the present petitioner acquired all the rights of SRHP in respect of the restaurant business that was being carried by SRHP in the suit premises. All the terms and conditions as stipulated in agreement of May 1, 2005 executed between the respondents and SRHP were to be applicable to the petitioner herein. In other words, the petitioner stepped into the shoes of SRHP qua the suit premises and the restaurant business being carried therein on all the terms and conditions of the agreement dated May 1, 2005.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have unauthorizedly dispossessed it in connivance with some of its staff officials on 24.09.2012. It is also noted that notice of termination of the agreement was sent by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to the petitioner on September 23, 2012. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 raised certain disputes and differences. The petitioner was called by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for rendition and settlement of accounts and was asked to give the possession of the premises and fixtures immediately.