Delhi District Court
Tilak Raj Ahuja vs Mahesh Chandra Ahuja on 24 August, 2021
DLND010092922016
Presented on : 17-01-2014
Registered on : 30-05-2016
Decision : Preliminary Decree passed
Date of Institution : 17.01.2014
Date reserved for judgment : 09.08.2021
Date of announcement of judgment
through VC : 24.08.2021
IN THE COURT OF Additional District Judge-03(ADJ-03)
AT New Delhi, NEW DELHI
Presided Over by Mr.Munish Markan
CS No.58627/16
Tilak Raj Ahuja
S/o Late Sh.Harbans Lal
R/o J13/9, GF, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi .... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Mahesh Chandra Ahuja
S/o Late Sh.Harbans Lal
R/o J-13/9, FF, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi .......Defendant
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for dissolution of the partnership firm, rendition of accounts, partition and mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff against his brother/defendant.
CS No.58627/16 Tilak Raj Ahuja Vs. Mahesh Chandra Ahuja Page 1 /192. The case of the plaintiff is that their father Late Sh. Harbans Lal Ahuja was the sole proprietor of the firm M/s National Iron Store and the said firm owned a plot no. 10194, Loha Mandi, Motia Khan, New Delhi. The father died on 19.11.1978. However, during his lifetime, Late Sh. Harbans Lal Ahuja inducted the defendant as a partner in the firm. Under a rehabilitation scheme of DDA for shifting the units from Loha Mandi, Motia Khan, the firm applied for a plot thereunder. Earlier, there were five more partners of the firm who retired vide deed of dissolution dated 28.02.1966. The father made the payments to the DDA in respect of the newly allotted Plot no. Z-127, Narina Wareshousing Scheme, Loha Mandi, narina, New Delhi which was alloted to the firm by the DDA on perpetual leasehold basis. Late Sh. Harbans Lal Ahuja also constructed a shop on the said plot.
3. Plaintiff further stated that soon after the death of Sh. Harbans Lal Ahuja on 19.11.1978, a fresh partnership deed was executed on 06.12.1978 between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the business of M/s National Iron Store. The mother of the parties, namely, Smt. Chanan Devi died on 20.06.1999 and plaintiff and defendants became entitled to one half share in the property in question i.e Z-127, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi. Since the plaintiff was 15 years younger to the defendant, therefore, the plaintiff trusted the defendant and the defendant actually carried out the partnership business. The defendant also obtained the signatures of the plaintiff on different occasions on various blank and stamp papers on the pretext of the smooth running of the business which the plaintiff CS No.58627/16 Tilak Raj Ahuja Vs. Mahesh Chandra Ahuja Page 2 /19 did in good faith.
4. Plaintiff further stated that during the subsistence of the partnership business, defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintiff from the partnership business and also not rendered the full details of the account to the plaintiff and for past some time, the defendant started creating hindrance thereby obstructing the plaintiff from entering the plaintiff business premises from time to time. Plaintiff also made a request to the defendant on various occasions for partition but to no avail. Plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 03.12.2005 through registered post and UPC but defendant did not reply.
5. It is further stated that plaintiff in the first instance filed a suit (no. 322/11) for rendition of account, partition and mandatory injunction but in the said suit, the defendant took the plea of non registration of the firm u/Sec 69 of The Partnership Act and, therefore, the plaintiff withdrew the said suit with liberty to file fresh after removing the legal objections and the order in this regard passed by the earlier Court on 12.12.2013.
6. Plaintiff further stated that thereafter, plaintiff issued a notice dated 21.12.2013 sent on 23.12.13 through registered post to the defendant stating that the since the partnership is at Will and he is not interested to continue the arrangement of the partnership of the firm M/s National Iron Store and, therefore, the firm stands dissolved w.e.f 01.01.2014 but the defendant did not respond to the said notice.
7. It is further stated that defendant is running another business in the name of M/s Abhishek Steels from the said premises CS No.58627/16 Tilak Raj Ahuja Vs. Mahesh Chandra Ahuja Page 3 /19 no. Z-127 and plaintiff is entitled to profits earned by the firm M/s Abhishek Steels for using the premises of the firm M/s National Iron Store and its goodwill and after rendition of accounts. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit praying for a preliminary decree for dissolving the firm, rendition of accounts and then final decree and for partition and mandatory injunction to defendant to return all the blank documents received by the defendant on false pretext. WRITTEN STATEMENT
8. Defendant filed the Written Statement wherein defendant took the plea that the suit is barred by limitation as no transaction took place in the firm M/s National Iron Store since 1997. The suit is also barred u/Sec 69 of the Partnership Act as the firm is an unregistered firm. Further on account of the withdrawal of the earlier suit no. 322/2011 vide order dated 12.12.2013, the present suit is liable to be dismissed u/O 2 rule 2 CPC as well as u/O 7 rule 11 CPC. Further, the sale tax registration of the firm has been canceled by the concerned authority way back in the year 2004 and the firm M/s Abhishek Steels is being operated from the property no. Z-127, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi. The plaintiff has not valued the suit properly and not paid the requisite Court fees as the value of the suit property is much more than Rs. 50 lakhs.
9. Defendant further stated that only he was looking after the business of the firm and admitted that plaintiff was inducted in the firm after the death of the father but plaintiff never took interest in the business of the firm and always remained sleeping partner and on CS No.58627/16 Tilak Raj Ahuja Vs. Mahesh Chandra Ahuja Page 4 /19 account of the conduct of the plaintiff, the business of the firm was closed in the year 1997 and plaintiff was duly paid his respective amounts from time to time and at the time of closure of the business of the firm, no amount was due to the plaintiff. On the contrary, plaintiff was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 6,005.58/-.
10. Defendant further admitted that their father late Sh. Harbans Lal Ahuja died interstate on 19.11.1978 and he was inducted as a partner by his father in the firm. The plaintiff has no concern in the property in question bearing no. Z-127 as the plaintiff is doing his own business under the name and style M/s Tilak Flour Mill since 1979 till date. Defendant admitted that earlier partners of the firm retired in February 1966 and thereafter he was inducted as a partner way back in May 1966. However, he took the stand that he applied for the allotment of the plot to the DDA under Naraina Warehousing Scheme and plot was alloted to him and all the payments were made by him and not by his father and he also raised the construction thereupon after getting the possession. Defendant admitted that fresh partnership deed was executed between plaintiff and defendant after the death of the father. He denied that the property in question bearing no. Z-127 devolved upon the parties in equal share and stated that the plot in question was alloted much prior in 1975 prior to the execution of the partnership deed between the plaintiff and defendant. He denied that any blank documents were got signed from the plaintiff. Further, he denied that any hindrance were caused in the business premises as no business was carried out from the premises in question pertaining CS No.58627/16 Tilak Raj Ahuja Vs. Mahesh Chandra Ahuja Page 5 /19 to the firm in question. Defendant admitted that presently the firm M/s Abhishek Steels is doing its business since 1989 from the premises Z- 127, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi and stated that plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the said property. Defendant denied the receipt of any legal notice dated 03.12.2005 and notice dated 21.12.2013. Defendant stated that M/s Abhishek Steels is the sole proprietorship concern of the defendant and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
11. Plaintiff filed the replication wherein he reiterated his stand as taken in the plaint and controverted stand taken by the defendant in the Written Statement.
12. Plaintiff also spelt out the background history of the firm about its earlier partners during the lifetime of the father. He further stated that defendant started using the premises of the firm bearing no. Z-127 for the purposes of his own firm M/s Abhishek Steels without plaintiff's consent. Further the defendant gave no notice at any point of time to the plaintiff regarding the dissolution of the firm M/s National Iron Store and the firm was not dissolved as it was also admitted by the defendant in the earlier proceedings in the prior suit. Plaintiff admitted that he is running his shop under the name and style M/s Tilak Flour Mill from his own premises.
13. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 09.10.2014:-
ISSUES:
1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.
2. Whether the suit is barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC? OPD.CS No.58627/16 Tilak Raj Ahuja Vs. Mahesh Chandra Ahuja Page 6 /19
3. Whether the suit is barred by Section 69 of Indian Partnership Act? OPD.
4. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC? OPD.
5. Whether the suit is undervalued? OPD.
6. Whether the firm M/s National Iron Store stands dissolved by Notices dated 21.12.2013? If yes, then consequences? OPP.
7. Whether the plot no. Z-127, Loha Mandi, Naraina was allotted to the defendant? OPD.
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for profits/mesne profits/rents earned by M/s Abhishek Steels? OPP.
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief as prayed? OPP.
10. Relief.
14. During plaintiff's evidence, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 who has tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/1 and relied upon following documents viz:
i. Ex. PW-1/1A is the Certified copy of order dated 12.12.2013.
ii. Ex.PW-1/2 is the Copy of legal notice dated 21.12.2013 (colly).
iii. Ex.PW-1/3 is the Postal receipt dated 23.12.2013. iv. Ex.PW-1/4 (colly), Copy of partnership deed dated 06.12.78 (also marked as Mark A) v. Ex.PW-1/5 (colly) is the copy of application form (2223) CS No.58627/16 Tilak Raj Ahuja Vs. Mahesh Chandra Ahuja Page 7 /19 by National Iron Store.
vi. Ex.PW-1/6 (colly) is the Deed of dissolution dated 28.01.1966.
vii. Ex.PW1/7 is the Affidavit of Harbans Lal Ahuja. viii. Ex.PW1/8 is the letter dated 05.12.1983 to coordinating officer damages by DDA(IND.) showing allottee as M/s National Iron Store.
ix. Ex.PW-1/9 is the Triplicated receipt (Rs. 1250) dated 30.11.1965 in the name of M/s National Iron Store. x. Ex.PW-1/10 is the Forwarding memo dated 24.01.1970 (Rs. 4937.5) in the name of M/s National Iron Store. xi. Ex.PW1-11 is the Forwarding memo of Rs. 2437.50 in the name of M/s National Iron Store, xii. Ex.PW1-12 is the Undertaking of defendant before DDA dated 26.07.1975.
xiii. Ex.PW1-13 is the Copy of receipt dated 03.06.1964 (rehabilitation).
xiv. Ex.PW1-14 is the Income Tax assessment order for assessment year 1963-64.
xv. Ex.PW1-15(Colly) is the copy of record of suit no. 322/2011 filed in Tis Hazari Courts.
15. Plaintiff examined PW-2 Sh. Hari Singh, Assistant LSBI, DDA, who relied upon the documents viz:
i. Ex.PW2-1, the back side of the receipt.CS No.58627/16 Tilak Raj Ahuja Vs. Mahesh Chandra Ahuja Page 8 /19
ii. Ex.PW2/DA is the allotment letter of property bearing no. Z- 127, Loha Mandi.
iii. Ex.PW2/DB is the Possession letter of property no. Z-127, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi. iv. Ex.PW2/DC is the letter dated 05.03.1990 and photocopy of the partnership deed dated 16.12.1978.
16. Plaintiff examined another witness PW-3 Sh. Pratap Singh, Superintendent, Property Tax Department, Karol Bagh Zone, MCD who placed on summoned record pertaining to the property no. Z-127 which is Ex.PW3/A (colly).
17. During defendant's evidence, defendant examined himself as DW1 who has tendered his affidavit Ex.DW1/1.
18. I have heard both the counsels and gone through the record carefully.
19. Issue wise findings of the court are as under:
ISSUE No.1 Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.
20. The stand of the defendant is that no transaction has taken place in the firm M/s National Iron Store since 1997 and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation as the suit was filed by the plaintiff in the year 2014.
21. On the other hand, the stand of the plaintiff is that the suit is maintainable as the partnership firm is a Partnership at Will and any partner can give the notice for the dissolution of firm at any point of time. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that non conduct of the CS No.58627/16 Tilak Raj Ahuja Vs. Mahesh Chandra Ahuja Page 9 /19 business is one thing and dissolution of firm is another. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that since no specific period of limitation for filing the suit for partition is prescribed in The Limitation Act and there is always a running cause of action. It is wholly dependent on any of the partners particularly in case of a Partnership at Will to give notice for dissolution of the firm or in the alternative to file the suit for dissolution of the firm and therefore, possibly for this reason, no specific period of limitation has been prescribed.
22. I find merit in the contentions raised by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. Non transaction of any business of a partnership firm cannot be equated to the dissolution of a partnership firm. Dissolution of firm is specific incident which is triggered by giving of a notice by any of the partner of the firm in a Partnership at Will U/s 43 The Partnership Act or dissolution of the firm can be sought by following the procedure as contemplated in Order 20 Rule 15 CPC.
23. In the present case, the plaintiff had sent a notice dated 21.12.2013 Ex PW-1/2 expressing his interest in not continuing with the arrangements of the partnership firm M/s National Iron Store and declared that the firm shall stand dissolved w.e.f. 01.01.2014 as it is Partnership at will. Though the defendant has denied the receipt of such notice dated 21.12.2013 however, no such suggestion was given to PW-1 during his examination denying such fact.
24. On the other hand, the plaintiff has also placed on record the copy of the said notice dated 21.12.2013 Ex PW-1/2 along with registered postal receipt Ex PW-1/3 which, prima facie show that CS No.58627/16 Tilak Raj Ahuja Vs. Mahesh Chandra Ahuja Page 10 /19 notice was served on the defendant in the usual course and the partnership stood dissolved w.e.f. 01.01.2014 and the present suit which was filed on 17.01.2014 is well within the limitation. The partnership is at Will is also clearly indicated in the partnership deed dated 06.12.78 Ex PW-1/4 which aspect is also discussed later while deciding other issues. Therefore, this issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE No.2 and 3Whether the suit is barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC? OPD. Whether the suit is barred by Section 69 of Indian Partnership Act? OPD.
25. It is a matter of record that earlier CS No.322/11 was filed by the plaintiff in the year 2006 for rendition of account, partition and mandatory injunction. Copy of the plaint is Ex.PW-1/15 (colly). It is also a matter of record that earlier suit no.322/11 was withdrawn by the plaintiff seeking liberty to file fresh suit after removing the technical defects of non registration of firm and not seeking the relief of dissolution of firm. The said suit was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the plaintiff to take appropriate remedy which is available under the law as reflected from the order dated 12.12.2013 passed by Sh.Pitamber Dutt, Ld. ADJ, New Delhi.
26. Ld. Counsel for defendant has argued that the plaintiff had failed to claim the relief of dissolution of the firm in the earlier civil suit and therefore, the subsequent i.e. present suit filed is hit by CS No.58627/16 Tilak Raj Ahuja Vs. Mahesh Chandra Ahuja Page 11 /19 Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.
27. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that the suit for dissolution of firm constitutes a distinct cause of action and subsequent suit in this regard is not barred. He relief upon the judgment of Ramesh Kumar Bhalotia Vs. Lalit Kumar Bhalotia AIR 2001 Patna 174 particularly para 7 thereof. Perused the same.
28. Ld. Plaintiff counsel further argued that the earlier suit filed was for rendition of account, partition and mandatory injunction whereas in the present suit, the plaintiff has also sought the relief of dissolution of firm and consequential reliefs and therefore, as per section 69 (3) (a) of The Partnership Act, it being a distinct cause of action, subsequent suit is not hit under U/o 2 Rule 2 CPC.
29. I find merit in the contentions raised by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. Though ordinarily, the suit filed by the partner of a unregistered firm is not maintainable u/s 69 (1) & (2) of The Partnership Act but Section 69 (3) (a) contains the exception which provides that the suit for dissolution of a partnership firm may be filed even by an unregistered firm, and seeking the dissolution of firm is a distinct cause of action as against the suit for rendition of account, partition and mandatory injunction. In this regard, useful guidance may be sought from the aforementioned judgment of Ramesh Kumr Bhalotia (Supra).
30. In view of the same, it is held that there is no bar of provision of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and both these issues are decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
CS No.58627/16 Tilak Raj Ahuja Vs. Mahesh Chandra Ahuja Page 12 /19ISSUE NO. 4:
Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC? OPD.
31. The stand of the defendant in this regard is that since the firm was not doing any business since 1997 and the sales tax registration of the firm has also been canceled by the concerned authority way back in 2004 and defendant is running his firm M/s Abhishek Steels from the property no. Z-127, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi and therefore the defendant had prayed for the dismissal of the suit u/O 7 rule 11 CPC which is opposed by Ld counsel for plaintiff.
32. As already held above that non doing of any business by the partnership firm is not akin to the dissolution of the firm. Similarly, the cancellation of the sale tax registration of a firm does not have any impact so far as the dissolution of the firm is concerned. Both are two distinct events having distinct unrelated effects. Therefore, in my considered opinion, no such case is made out for rejecting the plaint u/O 7 rule 11 CPC. This issue is accordingly decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. ISSUE NO.5:
Whether the suit is undervalued? OPD.
33. Plaintiff has valued the relief of dissolution and rendition of account at Rs.200 each, for the relief of partition, plaintiff has CS No.58627/16 Tilak Raj Ahuja Vs. Mahesh Chandra Ahuja Page 13 /19 valued the same for Rs. 40 lakhs for the purpose of jurisdiction and being a partner claimed to be in deemed possession of the property and, therefore, paid fixed Court fees of Rs. 20/-, and for the relief of mandatory injunction, the plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs. 130/- and appropriate Court fees of Rs. 13/- has been paid. Except a bald assertion that the suit had not been properly valued, no specific plea has been taken by the defendant in this regard. The stand of the defendant is that the value of the property is much more Rs. 50 lakhs. However, no evidence was led by the defendant in this regard. Further the plaintiff in the plaint has taken the stand that for past some time, the defendant had started creating hindrance by obstructing the plaintiff from entering the business premises from time to time which allegation has been denied by the defendant in the Written statement.
34. Further, the plaintiff has taken the stand that he being a partner in the firm, he is in deemed possession in the property. On the other hand, the stand of the defendant is that it is a plaintiff who never took active interest in the business of the partnership firm and always remained the sleeping partner and it is in fact he who was running the business of the firm and because of the conduct and acts of the plaintiff, the business of the partnership firm was closed in the year 1997. From the pleadings, it is clear that no specific plea of ouster was taken by the defendant and the plaintiff being a partner is deemed to be in constructive possession of the premises and therefore, was required to pay fixed Court fees of the property. The defendant having not led any evidence to show that the valued of the business premises CS No.58627/16 Tilak Raj Ahuja Vs. Mahesh Chandra Ahuja Page 14 /19 was more than Rs. 50 lakhs, therefore, in my considered opinion, the defendant has failed to show that the suit is undervalued. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.7- Whether the plot no. Z-127, Loha Mandi, Naraina was allotted to the defendant? OPD.
35. The stand of the defendant is that he had applied for the allotment of the plot under Naraina Warehousing Scheme of DDA and the said plot no. Z-127, Loha Mandi, Nariana, New Delhi was allotted to him and all the payments were made by him and also construction on the said premises was also raised by him from his own funds. However, Ex.PW1/5 is the application of allotment of the industrial plot which shows the name of the applicant as M/s National Iron Store. Ex.PW1/8 is the letter dated 05.12.1982 of the DDA regarding the allotment of the plot no. Z-127, Naraina Warehousing scheme which shows the name of the allottee as M/s National Iron Store. Ex.PW1/10 and Ex.PW1/11 are also the forwarding memo of the DDA showing the name of the payee as M/s National Iron Store. Ex.PW1/12 is the undertaking of the defendant wherein he on behalf of M/s National Iron Store handed over the possession of the earlier premises to DDA and shifted to Naraina Warehousing Scheme. It also notes the observation that he may be allotted plot no. Z-127 and it is countersigned by Executive Officer. Therefore, cumulative reading of CS No.58627/16 Tilak Raj Ahuja Vs. Mahesh Chandra Ahuja Page 15 /19 the documents from Ex.PW1/5 to Ex.PW1/14 unequivocally points to the fact that the property Plot Z-127, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi was allotted to the firm M/s National Iron Store in lieu of the surrendering of the property bearing no. 10194, Loha Mandi Motiakhan, New Delhi. There is no single document on record showing the ownership of the defendant to the Plot no. Z-127 in his personal capacity.
It is admitted case of the defendant that plaintiff was the partner of the firm M/s National Iron Store along with him. Therefore, issue no.7 is, accordingly, decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 6.
Whether the firm M/s National Iron Store stands dissolved by Notices dated 21.12.2013? If yes, then consequences? OPP.
36. Plaintiff has taken the stand that he had sent the notice dated 21.12.2013 Ex.PW1/2 to the defendant through registered post vide receipt Ex.PW1/3 dated 23.12.2013 dissolving the firm M/s National Iron Store w.e.f 01.01.2014. As noted earlier, there is not a single suggestion given to the plaintiff i.e PW1 by the defendant regarding non receipt of this notice. Therefore, u/Sec 27 of the General Clause Act, there is a presumption in favor of the plaintiff that notice is deemed to have been served to the defendant in due course and consequently, in terms of Section 43 of the Partnership Act, the firm stood dissolved w.e.f 01.01.2014.
CS No.58627/16 Tilak Raj Ahuja Vs. Mahesh Chandra Ahuja Page 16 /1937. The plaintiff has placed on record the copy of the Partnership Deed dated 06.12.1978 Mark A. In his affidavit Ex.PW- 1/1, plaintiff has also relied upon the copy of the Partnership Deed and stated that the same was admitted by the defendant and exhibited the same as Ex.PW-1/4 in para 31 of his affidavit Ex.PW-1/1. Though during his examination in chief, this document was marked as Mark A being photocopy, however, certified copy of this partnership deed was also exhibited as Ex.PW-1/4 by the LC on 25.05.2015. Further, during cross examination of PW-1, the factum of the partnership deed dated 06.12.1978 Ex.PW-1/4 (Mark A) was admitted by the plaintiff and the said fact was not disputed at all. In fact, no suggestion was given by the defendant at all disputing this partnership deed and perusal of this Partnership Deed dated 06.12.1978 Ex.PW-1/4 reflects that the duration of this partnership deed is at the Will of the partners as stated in clause 5 thereof. In para 2(d) of the written statement, the defendant has admitted that the partnership deed was executed in the year 1978. In para 2(c) of Written statement, defendant admitted the execution of partnership deed on 06.12.78. Therefore, considering the pleadings and the evidence on record, in my considered opinion, the partnership deed Ex PW-1/4 is duly proved and consequences flowing therefrom to follow.
38. Therefore, as per the clause 7 of the partnership deed dated 06.12.78 Ex PW-1/4, the profit and losses shall be borne by the partners in equal share and clause 8 provided that the goodwill of the firm and the property rights of the business premises Z-127, Loha CS No.58627/16 Tilak Raj Ahuja Vs. Mahesh Chandra Ahuja Page 17 /19 Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi belong to the firm and partners have equal share in the same.
Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is held that there was a partnership firm M/s National Iron Store with two partners i.e. plaintiff and the defendant which was a Partnership at Will formed on 06.12.78 and it stood dissolved w.e.f. 01.01.2014 by virtue of notice dated 21.12.2013. Further, it is held that on the dissolution of the firm, both the partners are entitled to 1/2 share in all the profits/assets and also liable to pay the losses/ debts in the equal measure, if any. Consequently, preliminary decree is passed in this regard and issue is accordingly disposed off. ISSUE No.8 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for profits/mesne, profits/ rents earned by M/s Abhishek Steels? OPP.
39. Defendant in his written statement in para 6 admitted that firm M/s Abhishek Steel is being operated from property No.Z-127, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi. The stand of the defendant is that no business was done of the firm M/s National Iron Store since 1997. Further, the defendant in para 2(h) of the written statement of reply on merit had stated that firm M/s Abhishek Steel is doing business since 1989 from the premises Z-127, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi. Property No.Z-127, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi belongs to the firm M/s National Iron Store.
Therefore, plaintiff being entitled to 1/2 share of the profits of CS No.58627/16 Tilak Raj Ahuja Vs. Mahesh Chandra Ahuja Page 18 /19 the firm is also entitled to the one half of the use and occupation charges which were to be paid by M/s Abhishek Steel for using the property No.Z-127, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi. Therefore, plaintiff is held entitled to ½ of the use and occupation charges to be paid by the firm M/s Abhishek steels for using the premises Z-127, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi and this issue is accordingly decided.
Relief:
40. Therefore, preliminary decree is passed to the effect that there was a partnership firm M/s National Iron Store with two partners i.e. plaintiff and the defendant which was a Partnership at Will formed on 06.12.78 and it stood dissolved w.e.f. 01.01.2014 by virtue of notice dated 21.12.2013. Further, it is held that on the dissolution of the firm, both the partners are entitled to 1/2 share in all the profits/assets and also liable to pay the losses/ debts in the equal measure, if any. Plaintiff is held entitled to ½ of the use and occupation charges to be paid by the firm M/s Abhishek steels for using the premises Z-127, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi. Decree sheet be prepared.
Announced in open court on 24.08.2021.
(Munish Markan) Additional District Judge-03 New Delhi District/PHC/New Delhi CS No.58627/16 Tilak Raj Ahuja Vs. Mahesh Chandra Ahuja Page 19 /19