Delhi District Court
Cs No. 1105/18 vs (1.) Satish Wadhwa on 10 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIKRANT VAID:
ACJ/CCJ/ARC(SE),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS No. 1105/18
Nitin Aggarwal
S/o Sh. Madan Lal Aggarwal
R/o Gali no.4, Balbir Nagar Extension,
Shahdara, Delhi110032. ............. Plaintiff
Versus
(1.) Satish Wadhwa
S/o Late L.C. Wadhwa
(2.) Usha Wadhwa
W/o Sh. Satish Wadhwa
Both R/oW23, 3rd floor,
Greater Kailash PartII, New Delhi. ...........Defendants
Date of Institution : 17.08.2018
Date of judgment : 10.09.2018
JUDGMENT UNDER ORDER XII RULE 6 CPC
1.It is a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction.
The present judgment has been necessitated on account of statement made by Ld. counsel for defendants on 10.09.2018.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case are that the plaintiff is carrying on his business /work from the first floor (front side) of property bearing no.M68, M block market, Greater Kailash PartI, New Delhi110048 (henceforth referred to as 'suit Nitin Aggarwal vs. Satish Wadhwa & Anr. CS No. 1105/18 Page 1 of 4 property') vide Leave & License Agreement dated 18.04.2017 in the name and style "Total Relax Spa". The said tenancy was created for a period of three years commencing from 01.07.2017 till 30.06.2020 for a monthly licence fee of Rs.2,75,000/. During the execution of said agreement and in compliance of the terms of the same, plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 8,25,000/ by way of cheques and also handed over 72 undated cheques to the defendants. However, upon insistence of defendants, the plaintiff is making payment of rent in cash to the defendants. In the second week of July 2018, defendants approached the plaintiff and expressed their need for cash and requested the plaintiff to pay six months rent in advance. Upon persistent request and insistence of defendants, plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 15,50,000/ in cash to the defendants on 18.07.2018 through one Amarpal and no receipt for the same was also given to the plaintiff. It is averred that since last week of July 2018, defendants through their agent/employee Amarpal and other associates have been visiting the tenanted premises and creating nuisance by entring forcibly and raising voice and hurling abuses which has resulted in financial loss to the plaintiff and is causing damage to the reputation and business of plaintiff. It is averred that defendants are now threatening the plaintiff & his employees to dispossess them from the tenanted premises. Hence, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff praying for the following relief:
a) a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, restraining the defendants, their agents, associates, official employees, relatives/family members, legal heirs etc. thereby permanently restraining him/them from creating any nuisance or Nitin Aggarwal vs. Satish Wadhwa & Anr. CS No. 1105/18 Page 2 of 4 hindrance/obstruction in the peaceful running of bsiness/SPA by the plaintiff at suit property.
b) a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, restraining the defendants, their agents, associates, official employees, relatives/family members, legal heirs etc. thereby permanently restraining him/them from forcibly evicting /removing the plaintiff from any part or portion of the suit property.
c) a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby directing the defendants to return 72 undated cheques to the plaintiff.
3. On 18.08.2018, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff withdrew his relief no. (iii) from the prayer clause of the plaint.
4. The relationship of licensor and licensee is admitted by the defendants. Further, even the possession of the plaintiff is also admitted. On 10.09.2018, Ld. counsel for the defendants made a statement that the defendants shall not dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property except in accordance with law and further shall not obstruct or create any hindrance in the peaceful enjoyment of the plaintiff in the suit property in the following words:
"I am counsel for defendants. I have instructions from defendants to state that without admitting the allegations made in the plaint and with prejudice to their rights and contentions the defendants shall not dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property i.e. 1st Floor, Front Side of property no. M68, MBlock, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi 110048 and further that they shall not do any act which shall be obstructing the plaintiff in peaceful enjoyment of the suit property. The defendants admit the relationship of licensor and licensee qua the suit property. The defendants shall take lawful recourse for getting the plaintiff evicted from the suit property."Nitin Aggarwal vs. Satish Wadhwa & Anr. CS No. 1105/18 Page 3 of 4
5. As such, in view of the above statement, defendants have admitted the claim of the plaintiff to the extent that he is in possession of the suit property and shall not be disposessed without due process of law. On 18.08.2018, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff withdrew the relief of directing the defendants to return 72 undated cheques to the plaintiff of the prayer clause of the plaint. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed to the extent that the defendants are permanently restrained from disposessing the plaintiff from the suit property without due process of law and also from creating any obstruction or hindrance in the peaceful possession/enjoyment of the plaintiff in the suit property.
6. Costs of the suit to be borne by the respective parties.
7. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in the open court (Vikrant Vaid)
on 10th September, 2018 ACJ/CCJ/ARC(SE),
Saket Courts/New Delhi
Nitin Aggarwal vs. Satish Wadhwa & Anr. CS No. 1105/18 Page 4 of 4