Himachal Pradesh High Court
Master Uday Thakur And Others vs Himachal Pradesh University And ... on 18 March, 2015
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No. 35 of 2015
Date of decision: 18.03.2015
.
Master Uday Thakur and others Petitioners.
Versus
Himachal Pradesh University and another Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioners: Mr. Harsh Khann, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr.J.L.Bhardwaj, Advocate for
r respondent No.1.
Sureshwar Thakur, J. (oral)
The plaintiffs/petitioners herein instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants/non applicants/respondents herein from alienating the demised/suit premises hitherto in possession as tenant by their predecessor-in-interest one Devinder Singh Thakur. During pendency of the suit the petitioners herein plaintiffs before the learned trial Court had instituted an application under Order 39 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:48:26 :::HCHP 2Rule 1 and 2 CPC claiming relief therein against the respondents herein for restraining the respondent No.1 from handing over possession of Shop No.1 in .
University premises known as Pink Patel to any one except the applicants or from advertising/calling tenders or initiating any process for allotment of same to anyone except the applicants and for directing the respondent No. 1 to hand over possession of the demised premises to applicants during pendency of the case.
2. Uncontrovertedly, the predecessor in interest of the petitioner herein one Devinder Singh Thakur was a lessee under a lease agreement entered into with him by respondent No.1. The lease qua the suit property had a fixity of tenure inasmuch as its longevity commenced from 24.2.2009 and was to end on 23.2.2012. Uncontrovertedly, also the petitioners herein omitted to take control of or run business hitherto run therefrom by their predecessor-in-interest, arising from the prolonged illness of their predecessor-
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:48:26 :::HCHP 3in-interest. Uncontrovertedly, the possession of the suit premises were gained by respondent No.2 obviously then the petitioners herein are not in .
possession of the suit premises. Given the fact that the respondent NO. 1 is lessor/owner of the suit premises obviously then entwined with the factum of tenure of lease qua the demised/suit premises having outlived its longevity obviously then the petitioners herein cannot with any vigour contend before this Court that the owner/lessor who is the respondent No. 1 herein, be restrained from, on completion of the tenure of lease of the suit premises, entering into any agreement qua the suit premises with any other entity/person, than the petitioners herein. Besides concomitantly then the owner/lessor cannot also be restrained from managing dealing or determining the manner of management/alienation of the suit property in the manner as envisaged, contemplated or dictated by the petitioners herein who on completion of the tenure of lease have no surviving or subsisting right therein. If ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:48:26 :::HCHP 4 the above contention is accepted, it would untenably fetter the rights of the respondent No. 1 herein while being the owner to manage, deal or alienate the suit .
premises in the manner in which it desires. The manner of appreciation of material by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity.
The conclusions and findings arrived at by both the Courts below are anvilled upon proper appreciation of material on record, obviously then the findings do not necessitate interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. The impugned order is affirmed.
18th March, 2015. (Sureshwar Thakur)
™ Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:48:26 :::HCHP