SANJAY PRASAD @ SANJAY Vs. MANJU JOSHI & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard the learned senior counsels on behalf of either of the party, it transpires that a Gym for physical exercise was commenced on 09.11.1996 under the oral agreement between the appellant and the respondents. The terms of such agreement were reduced into writing on 28.11.1997 and got registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Nainital. It was some sort of partnership, but not strictly a partnership firm as envisaged under the Partnership Act of 1932. But, all the same, it was a partnership under the mutual settlement of the terms subject to the condition that building owned by both the respondents jointly (the spouse) was to be used by the appellant Mr. Sanjay Prasad @ Sanjay for running this Gym.

(2.) The building in question is located on the Mall Road of Nainital. Mr. Sanjay Prasad had to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month as the user charges of such building to the respondents. Somehow, the dispute erupted because of the default in making the payment as stated above. So notices were issued by the land owners to Mr. Sanjay Prasad on 27.5.2010 and thereafter further on 27.11.2011. Mr. Sanjay Prasad turned the deaf ear. So, a suit for vacation and recovery of the rental charges were instituted on 28.8.2011.

(3.) Mr. Sanjay Prasad appears and drawn the attention of the Court towards the Clause 13 of agreement dated 28.11.1997, which contemplates that in case of any dispute, the matter shall be referred to the arbitrator, who shall be none other but Shri N.C. Mungali, Advocate. The learned Trial Judge accordingly accepted the objections of Mr. Sanjay Prasad and referred the matter to Mr. Mungali, Advocate.