BHARATBHAI UKAJI PRAJAPATI Vs. MANIBEN PARSHOTTAMBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Appeal from order has been filed under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 being aggrieved with the order passed by the Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad below Exh.67 in Civil Suit No.2080/2011 dated 06.08.2012 on the grounds stated in the memo of appeal in detail.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel, Mr.Tanvish Bhatt for the respondent referred to the facts of the case and submitted that there is no privity of contract between the appellant and the respondent and there is a 'leave and license agreement' with regard to the premises in question between the respondent and the CompanyREI Agro Ltd. He further submitted that similarly there is a 'franchise agreement' between REI Agro Ltd as Franchiser and the present petitionerBharatbhai Ukaji Prajapati as a franchisee. The franchiser had taken the premises on 'leave and license' basis from the original landlord (the respondentoriginal defendant), however, there is no privity of contract between the present appellant and the respondent. He submitted that the respondent had entered into 'leave and license agreement' with REI Agro Ltd., who in turned had entered into 'franchise agreement' with the appellantoriginal plaintiff for the purpose of business and the plaintiff was to use and occupy the premises as part of the 'franchise agreement' between the Company and the appellantplaintiff and when the 'franchise agreement' has been terminated, the appellant plaintiff has no right to continue or occupy the premises. He submitted that there is a subtle distinction between the 'leave and licence'. He submitted that in view of the fact that the premises was given on 'leave license' basis by the respondent to the Company, there is no question of any right of tenancy.