LUCKNOW MEDICAL AGENCIES Vs. ARJUN LAL & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cm No. 9329/2018 (delay of 98 days in re-filing) For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing is condoned.

(2.) Appellant/Plaintiff filed the subject suit pleading that the appellant/plaintiff was a tenant in the first floor of the property bearing no.60A, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi belonging to the respondent no.2/defendant no.2. The respondent no.1/defendant no.1 was a tenant in the ground-floor and mezzanine floor of the same property. The respondent no.1/defendant no.1 in his tenanted premises was besides running his business of pastry/bakery shop. In the mezzanine floor the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 was running a factory for manufacturing of bakery products. In the night of 27.4.1995 a fire broke out in the tenanted premises of the respondent no.1/defendant no.1. As a result of the fire, there took place destruction of the drugs worth lacs of rupees of the appellant/plaintiff stored in the tenanted premises. Appellant/plaintiff pleads that respondent no.1/defendant no.1 was illegally carrying on a factory for manufacturing of the bakery products without any license of respondent no.3/defendant no.3 who failed to perform its duty. The subject suit was therefore filed pleading that respondent nos.1 and 2/defendant nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severely liable to pay the suit amount of Rs. 30,44,433.00/- under the different heads of loss of material, loss of fixtures, loss of profit, compensation for mental torture etc. appellant/plaintiff served a legal notice dated 10.4.1998 upon the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 but since respondent no.1/defendant no.1 did not pay the amount therefore the subject suit came to be filed.

(3.) The suit was contested by the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 and he pleaded that he was not running on any factory for manufacturing bakery products and that he was simply selling bakery products in the premises belonging to the respondent no.2/defendant no.2 and tenanted to the respondent no.1/defendant no. 1. Respondent no.1/defendant no.1 also denied his negligence as alleged by the appellant/plaintiff and pleaded that the fire department had reported that the fire took place on account of electric short circuit and not because of any negligence on the part of the respondent no.1/defendant no.1. It was also pleaded by the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 that the appellant/plaintiff has filed the suit concealing the fact that he has already received the entire compensation from the insurance company. Suit was therefore prayed to be dismissed.