INTERCRAFT LIMITED Vs. CAPITAL BOOT HOUSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed by the defendant under Rule 4 of Order 39, Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) Suit No.2199/94 is filed by the plaintiff Intercraft Ltd. to get a decree of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the shop bearing No.B-24, Cannaught Place, new Delhi and to further restrain them from disturbing the plaintiff in carrying on the business in the said shop and to get a declation that he is lawful tenant of the defendants.

(3.) Plaintiff has come before the Court alleging that plaintiff is a public limited company and is function under the name and style of Intershoppe. They are manufacturers and retailers of garments in India. They deal in radymade grments and related accessories. They have got international market and have got a very high reputation not only in India but throughout the world. They were interested in opening a retail outlet in Cannaught Place in the year 1980. At that time the defendants were also interested in giving their shop No.B-24, Cannaught Place, New Delhi, on rent. But the said shop, which was occupied and was in possesion of the defendants was in their possession and occupation as the tenants and, therefore, in view of the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act it was not possible to enter into a contract of sub-lease. Therefore, in order to avoid the clutches of the Rent Act they prepared a document showing that the transaction between the parties was that of principal and agent and they were maintaining record and documents in the nature of a contract of agency, but as a matter of fact, plaintiff got the possession of ground floor portion of the shop bearing No.B-24, Cannaugt Place, New Delhi and consisting of ground floor and mezannine floor. The defendants had their shop by the name of Capital Boot House and they were carrying on their business in the mezannine floor whereas the plaintiff started its business under the name and style of Intershoppe in the ground floor. However, in order to avoid any record of sub-lease created by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff the documents executed between them were of an agreements of agency and in the light of the said documents the record was being maintained. Initially, the agreement was executed on 15.9.1980 mentioning therein that it was for a period of three years. Thereafter, there were execution of documents on 16.9.1983, 19.9.1986, 16.9.1989 and 19.9.1991. Thus, from 1980 till the date of the suit plaintiffs are in possession of the said ground floor of shop No.B-24, Cannaught Place, New Delhi and they are running their business under the name and style of Intershoppe. After the expiry of the time mentioned in the last document through negotiations and talks took place between the parties for executing another fresh document, those talks failed. Thereafter on 27.9.1994 one of the defendants' partners, viz. Sukhinder Pal Singh, visited the plaintiff's shop and created a scene by using unparliamentary language to the staff and threatened to put his locks to the premises and not to allow them to make use of the premises and to forcibly dispossess them and, therefore, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 3.10.1994.