SHRI DUNI CHAND Vs. BUDHI PRAKASH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the judgment dated 8.5.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 04/2017 affirming the order dated 17.12.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in CMA No. 99-vi/2016(Civil Suit No. 96/2016) titled as Duni Chand & another Versus Budhi Prakash and another, whereby application having been filed by the petitionerplaintiff (hereinafter, 'plaintiff') under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, for grant of interim injunction came to be dismissed.

(2.) For having a bird's eye view, the facts as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff filed a suit simpliciter for injunction restraining the respondent from dispossessing them forcibly from the Hotel in question, averring therein that the respondents are owners of the hotel "Morning Star", located at Village Simsa, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. Plaintiff further averred that the hotel in question was leased out by the respondents in favour of the plaintiff for a period of three years with effect from 1.4.2016 to 31.3.2019 vide lease deed dated 7.1.2016. Possession of the hotel was delivered to the plaintiff immediately after execution of aforesaid lease deed. Plaintiff further averred that they paid lease amount to the respondents on yearly basis but despite that respondents were causing interference as well as dispossessing them from the aforesaid hotel during the pendency of the lease deed. Alongwith aforesaid suit, plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, praying therein for grant of interim injunction restraining the respondents from dispossessing the plaintiff from the hotel during the pendency of the suit.

(3.) Aforesaid suit and application came to be resisted by the respondents by way of filing written statement to the suit and reply to the application. While admitting the factum with regard to leasing out of the hotel in question to the plaintiff on yearly basis, respondents claimed before the court below that yearly amount was settled at Rs.23.50 Lakh, and during peak tourist season with effect from 1.4.2016 to 15.7.2016, plaintiff had run the hotel. Respondents further averred before the learned Court below that the plaintiff violated terms and conditions of the lease deed and committed fault in making payment to the respondents, as per agreed schedule and as such they were liable to be evicted from the premises during the subsistence of the lease deed. Respondents further claimed that the plaintiff failed to pay electricity, water, garbage bills and luxury tax of the hotel, as a consequence of which, authorities concerned, initiated proceedings for disconnection of electricity and water connections on account of non-payment of dues. Respondents, further claimed that the plaintiff(s) had issued two cheques bearing No. 577970 dated 15.5.2016 amounting to Rs.5,00,000 and No. 577871 dated 10.6.2016 amounting to Rs.8.50 Lakh in favour of respondents towards discharge of aforesaid liability but both these cheques were dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the account of plaintiff. Respondents specifically denied the allegations with regard to forcible dispossession of the plaintiff and claimed that plaintiffs themselves had abandoned the hotel.