Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Plaintiff as partnership firm has filed the present suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from making any structural changes in the entry gate measuring 11.5 feet shown as X to X­1 in the site plan and also from interfering in any manner in the entry of plaintiff's vehicles carrying goods and his private vehicles to approach his industrial shed i.e. the tenanted premises shown in the red colour in the site plan of premises no. B­55, Mayapuri, Phase­I, New Delhi.

3. Defendant no. 1 and 3 filed their joint written statement submitting that plaintiff had been permitted as a licencee by late Sh. Charanjit Lal Seth to use temporary shed located in the rear courtyard at the end of East side private lane of the factory building across the boiler, installation of defendant no. 1 on a monthly licence fee of Rs. 670/­. The plaintiff afterwards executed licence deed dated 29.07.1981 for 11 months and thereafter on the expiry of said licence deed another licence deed dated 28.06.1982 was executed by the plaintiff for another period of :6: CS No.: 402/13/90 11 months from 01.07.1982. The use of the said temporary shed has been permitted to the plaintiff to start and carry on plaintiff's industrial business in the said portion of the factory premises. The overall control and possession of the licenced shed is under the occupation of defendant no. 1 and the main gate of factory building is in the exclusive occupation of defendant no. 1. Plaintiff has got no concern of any kind with the passage, latrine, bathroom or any other amenities as alleged in the suit. Present suit is barred in view of earlier similar suit filed by the plaintiff. Vide notice dated 16.12.1988, the licence of the plaintiff in respect of the shed in question has been terminated from the end of 31.01.1989 but the plaintiff as counter blast to the said notice of termination of licence, has filed the present suit. Present suit is also barred under section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act. Defendants also submitted that without prejudice to their rights and contentions, defendant no. 1 at present has no intention to make any structural change in the entry gate. Rest of the case of the plaintiff has been denied being wrong and incorrect.

11. My issue­wise finding as follows:

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant? OPD Onus to prove this issue was on defendant. In the written statement defendant has taken an objection that there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff to file the present suit of injunction as the : 10 : CS No.: 402/13/90 status of the plaintiff has always been that of a licencee. It is further stated in the written statement that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the defendant, defendant no. 1 has no intention to make any structural changes in the entry gate.

14. In the present case the relief being sought by the plaintiff is to the effect that the defendant should be restrained from making any structural changes in the entry gate measuring 11.5 feet in the site plan and also from interfering in any manner in the entry of plaintiff's vehicle carrying goods and his private vehicles to approach industrial shed. This court is of the view that irrespective of going to the status of the plaintiff whether as a tenant or as a licencee, the admitted position is that plaintiff is in possession of the suit premises admittedly since 1976 and defendants have admitted in their written statement that as on today they have no intention to make structural changes. This court, therefore, finds that the plaintiff have had the cause of action if his right to use the common passage for ferrying the goods by way of vehicles and also entry : 12 : CS No.: 402/13/90 of his private vehicles to the suit premises from the main gate of the factory is obstructed by the defendants.