BATA INDIA LTD Vs. KAPIL BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 2818/2008 in CM (M) No. 241/2008 allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM (M) No. 241/2008

(2.) THIS petition has been preferred to impugn the order dated 10. 12. 2007 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge in MCA No. 17/2007 whereby the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16. 1. 2007 passed by the Civil Judge. Learned civil Judge had by the order dated 16. 1. 2007, dismissed the application seeking interim injunction, filed by the petitioner (who was the plaintiff in the suit)under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC and had allowed the application filed by the respondent/defendant seeking interim injunction against the petitioner/plaintiff.

(3.) THE petitioner had filed the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent/defendant from interfering with its peaceful possession of premises bearing No. 16-B, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The petitioner is a well-known manufacturer and marketeer of footwear and other allied products. The respondent, admittedly is the tenant in respect of the suit premises i. e. the shop situated at 16-B Connaught Place, New Delhi under one Rashida Begum on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/ -. The case of the petitioner was that parties had entered into a joint retail venture agreement dated 28. 3. 1989, which was renewed in the year 2001. This agreement was entered into to run a retail showroom to sell the goods of the petitioner from the aforesaid premises. The petitioner pleaded that irrespective of the arrangement disclosed in the documents, since the inception, the plaintiff was in complete possession and control of the suit premises and the lock and keys of the premises were also with the plaintiff through its Store Manager. The plaintiff claimed that it was running its retail showroom in the suit premises. It was further claimed that the plaintiff always posted its employee at the suit premises to run, manage and operate the showroom of the plaintiff and cash proceeds of the sales recorded in the suit premises were also handled by the employees of the plaintiff. These proceeds were deposited in a bank account maintained and operated jointly by the parties. The shop was also opened by closed by the plaintiff. It was further claimed by the plaintiff that it had spent several lakhs of rupees in renovation of the suit premises and the defendant was being paid the agreed percentage of retail price turnover for the use of the premises. The plaintiff claimed the right to occupy and possess of the suit premises as a sublessee and claimed protection of its rights and privileges as available to a sublessee. The suit was filed in December 2005 when the defendant sent a letter dated 27. 6. 2005 requiring the plaintiff to vacate the premises. Along with the suit the plaintiff filed the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 cpc to restrain the defendant from disturbing its peaceful use and occupation of the suit premises or from interfering with the display and sale of the products of the plaintiff in the suit premises. Other ancillary reliefs were also sought by the petitioner.