Delhi District Court
Noor Mohd vs Narender Kumar Aggarwal & Anr on 25 February, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. SMITA GARG: JSCC/ASCJ/MM(NW)
ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
Suit No. 485/10
In re:
Noor Mohd. .. Plaintiff
Versus
Narender Kumar Aggarwal & Anr. ..
Defendant
ORDER: 1 By this order, I propose to decide an application U/o 39 R 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff praying the following reliefs:
i)that the defendant no1 be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and dispossessing him from the shop no4 situated at 6, Railway Station Road, Samai Pur, Badli, Delhi110042 ( herein after referred to as 'suit shop') till the final disposal of the suit;
ii)that the defendant no2 be directed to grant license for running meat shop from the suit shop.
2 This is suit for permanent injunction. The brief facts of the case as set out in the plaint are that earlier the plaintiff was a tenant under the defendant no1 in respect of the shop no6 situated at 6, Railway Station Road, Samai Pur, Badli, Delhi110042 and was holding a valid license from Veterinary Service Department, MCD to run his shop under the name and style of M/s Noor Mohd. Halal Meat Shop. Now, the plaintiff is stated to 2 be tenant under the defendant no1 in respect of the suit shop. It has been averred that since the plaintiff did not accede to unlawful demand of the defendant no1 to increase the rent to Rs. 10,000/ per month, the defendant no1 started harassing him by not giving no objection to him for obtaining license from the defendant no2 to run his meat shop from the tenanted shop and rather made a complaint against him. Without affording any opportunity of being heard, the application of the plaintiff for grant of license was dismissed by the defendant no2 due to the objection raised by defendant no1, which was intimated to the plaintiff vide letter no. 629/VO/CLZ/2010 dated 23.11.2010. According to the plaintiff, since the suit shop is only source of livelihood for him and his family and the defendant no1 made attempts on 29.11.2010 and 04.12.2010 to dispossess him from the suit shop, he was constrained to file the present suit.
3 In the written statement, the defendant no1 has averred that the suit shop was let out to the plaintiff on 09.10.09 for a period of eleven months only but after the expiry of tenancy on 31.08.2010, the plaintiff not only failed to vacate the premises but also failed to tender the usage charges. It has been denied that any threat was extended by the defendant no1 to the plaintiff to dispossess him from the suit shop without due process of law. According to the defendant no1, the plaintiff was holding license to run the meat shop from the shop no6 only and since he was found selling unstamped meat from the suit shop, his license was validly revoked by the defendant no2. It has been averred that the 3 application of the plaintiff for grant of license to run meat shop from the suit shop has already been rejected by the defendant no2 on 06.12.2010 and it can not renew the license of the plaintiff in the absence of no objection certificate from the landlord i.e defendant no1.
The defendant no2 has averred in its written statement that the plaintiff had earlier moved an application dated 04.12.2009 for grant of Trade License for selling Mutton and Chicken from the suit shop but the said application was dismissed on 17.04.2010 for the reasons such as the structure of the shop was not as per the norms for granting trade license, alive goats were found inside the premises, sanitary condition was not well and sale of mutton found unstamped. The plaintiff again moved an application on 26.07.2010 for reopening the rejected application on the basis that he would remove all the objections but he failed to submit NOC from the landlord, registration of shop, house conversion charges etc. In the meanwhile, the defendant no1 filed a complaint against the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff was directed to close down the trade and his application was rejected by the defendant no2. It has been averred that since the plaintiff has not been granted trade license under the provision of DMC Act, he is not entitled to the relief claimed. 4 I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5 Admittedly, the plaintiff was inducted as tenant in respect of the suit shop by the defendant no1. Though the 4 plaintiff failed to disclose the terms of tenancy but the defendant no1 has placed on record a compromise note/rent deed executed between the parties to show that the premises were let out for a period of 11 months w.e.f 01.10.2009 to 31.08.2010 for commercial purposes to the plaintiff. The defendant no1 has averred that since the tenancy has come to an end with the efflux of time, the plaintiff has become an unauthorized occupant in respect of the suit shop and a notice to quit has already been sent to him. Needless to say, even if the tenancy of the plaintiff in respect of suit shop has come to an end, he cannot be dispossessed therefrom by the landlord i.e the defendant no1, without due process of law. The defendant no1 has also categorically averred in his written statement that he has no intention to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly. Hence, the defendant no1 is restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and dispossessing him from the suit shop without due process of law during the pendency of the suit.
With regard to the second relief, it is not in dispute that the application dated 04.12.2009 of the plaintiff for grant of trade license to run the meat shop from the suit shop was rejected by the defendant no2 on 17.04.2010 due to the non fulfillment of the prescribed norms. According to the defendant no2, the plaintiff again moved an application which was received on 26.07.2010 for the reopening of his rejected application on the ground that he would remove all the objections raised by defendant no2. Admittedly, the subsequent application was dismissed by the 5 defendant no2 solely for the reason that the defendant no1 raised an objection for the renewal of license. It is in the case of the defendant no2 that they had visited the suit shop to verify whether the grounds upon which the previous application of the plaintiff was dismissed had been rectified by him or not. Considering the fact that the shop was let out to the plaintiff for commercial purposes, irreparable loss and injury shall be caused to him, if he is unable to enjoy the suit shop beneficially in order to earn his livelihood.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the plaintiff shall again moved an application for grant of license to run the meat shop from the suit shop to the defendant no2 who shall decide the same within 30 days without insisting upon no objection certificate from the landlord i.e defendant no1.
The application U/o 39 R 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff is accordingly disposed of.
Announced in the open court ( Smita Garg)
on 25.02.2011 JSCC/ASCJ(NW)
6
S
25.02.2011
Pr. Plaintiff with counsel Sh. S. H. Nizami.
Deft. no1 in person.
None for deft. no2.
Vide separate order, the application U/o 39 R 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff has been disposed of.
Now to come up on 13/04/2011 for admission/denial and framing of issues.
JSCC/ASCJ(NW) Delhi:25.02.11