DINESH MATHUR Vs. O P ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through the present petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure wants this Court to revise and set aside the judgment and order dated October 12,1995 passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge whereby the judgment and order dated September 24,1994 passed by the Civil Judge was confirmed.

(2.) Brief facts which are necessary for the proper appreciation of the points involved in the present petition are as under: that the present petitioner is a partner of M/s. Lakshmi Restaurant, 7-G, Connaught Circus, New Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as the disputed property). Late Shri Mool Chand, grandfather of the petitioner was inducted as a tenant of the disputed premises by one Bhagat Ram, original lessee of the disputed property in the year 1937. Shri Mool Chand obtained a licence for running the said restaurant from the Chief Commissioner, Delhi. He also procured a licence for running a bar in the said restaurant. The said licence being L-4 was converted into an L-2 licence in the year 1955 to sell only bottled liquor. Nobody ever objected to the running of the said restaurant in the disputed property since the year 1937. Respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement dated December 1,1982 to purchase the disputed property from S/Shri Daijit Singh Pal and Yash Pal Oberoi. He also made part payment and secured the symbolic possession over the disputed property. Subsequently, Shri Daijit Singh Pal executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No. I in respect of his un-divided half share.

(3.) Respondent No. 1filed a suit against the petitioner for perpetual injunction on the ground that the disputed property was being used in contravention of Clause 2(7) of the perpetual lease deed dated September 27,1948 and the petitioner be thus restrained from running the restaurant on the said property. It is absolutely wrong and false that there is any contravention of any provision of the said lease deed as the said restaurant and the liquor bar are being run on the disputed property since the year 1937 under a license given by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi. Respondent No. 1 is alleged to have acquired the proprietary rights in the disputed property in the year 1982. Respondent No. I knew from the very beginning that the disputed property was being used for running the restaurant. The present suit was filed on November 26, 1992. Hence the present suit is barred by time.