DHARMPAL SINGH Vs. JITENDRA PRASAD GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is directed against the order passed by the trial court dated 21.1.2014, deciding the issue no.4, against the defendant-petitioner, as well as the order dated 22.5.2014, rejecting the revision filed against it.

(2.) The facts, which are not in dispute, are that an agency for establishing LPG outlet was awarded by Bharat Petroleum Company Limited in favour of the defendant-petitioner Dharampal Singh. For establishment of the agency a storage godown was required to be constructed and for such purposes, the plaintiff-respondent no.1 to 5 gave their open land, measuring 1350 sq. yards, on rent to the defendant-petitioner initially for a period of 15 years, which could be extended, pursuant to a registered rent agreement executed on 25.11.1982. The rent agreement contained a clause permitting the defendant-petitioner to raise construction of appropriate building and godown upon the land, after obtaining sanction of plan etc., and upon the termination of rent agreement, the second party i.e. defendant-petitioner had the right to remove its malwa, bricks, iron, furniture etc. from the land.

(3.) Original Suit No.476 of 2012 was filed by the plaintiff-respondents with the allegation that open land in question was given on rent to the defendant-petitioner, pursuant to a registered rent agreement, which was initially for a period of 15 years, and was renewable in terms of the agreement. It was stated that the rent agreement remained operative for a period of 30 years and vide notice dated 6.9.2012, the tenancy itself was terminated. Clause 12 of the plaint specifically mentioned that upon the land, which was given on rent, the defendant-petitioner has raised construction of a godown, which was constructed pursuant to the authorization given in the rent agreement itself, and as the tenancy has been terminated, therefore, the defendant-petitioner is entitled to remove malwa, bricks, iron, furniture, etc. Consequently, prayer was made for eviction and consequential possession of the land from the defendant-petitioner, after removing malwa, bricks etc. and in case defendant-petitioner failed to remove malwa, bricks etc., then the same be removed under the orders of the court. The description of the suit property clearly mentions it as a godown of Dharm Gas Agency situated upon the land in question, measuring 1350 sq. yards. The defendant-petitioner filed a written statement raising various issues. Trial court framed 9 issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties. Issue no.5 to 8 were decided by the trial court vide order dated 22.5.2013 in favour of the plaintiff. Issue no.5 was as to whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006, issue no.6 was as to whether the suit has been under valued, issue no.7 was as to whether court fee paid is sufficient and issue no.8 was as to whether court has jurisdiction to hear the suit. The trial court found that the suit was maintainable and that it has been appropriately valued and adequate court fee upon it has been paid. It was also held that trial court has the territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit.