Court No. - 27
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 592 of 2019 Appellant :- U.P. State Industrial Development Nigam Ltd.
Respondent :- Manju Singh And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Nripendra Mishra
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant.
The appellant is a defendant in a suit instituted by the respondent no.1.
The appellant in the present appeal has challenged the order dated 13.12.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad whereby, the court below has allowed the application of the respondent no.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C restraining appellant in interfering from the peaceful possession of respondents over the plot no. A-23/4 area 800 meter situated at industrial region, site-4 Sahibabad, Ghaziabad.
The appellant by a lease deed dated 30.06.2003 allotted the plot No.A-23/4 having an area 800 meter at industrial site-4 Sahibabad, Ghaziabad. The period of lease is 90 years. Since respondent no.1 was running in loss in the business, therefore, he submitted an application to the appellant seeking permission to sublet part of the aforesaid plot. The appellant vide letter dated 03.09.2014 has granted permission to respondent no.1 with the condition that it can sublet 300 square meter of the aforesaid plot for a period of 5 years only for the purpose of automobiles workshop/service centre. It further transpires from the record that the appellant issued show cause notices seeking explanation from respondent no.2 as to why the allotment of aforesaid plot in favour of respondent no.1 shall not be cancelled as it has committed breach of condition no. 3(i) of the lease agreement.
Respondent no.1, thereafter, preferred a suit for mandatory injunction restraining the respondent/appellant not to cancel the lease in favour of respondent no.1, i.e., plaintiff and further, the appellant (defendant) be restrained from further allotting the aforesaid plot to any other person.
It appears that appellant, thereafter, has cancelled the lease deed by order dated 01.12.2017.
In the aforesaid suit, respondent no.1 filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. praying therein that interim relief be granted restraining appellants/ respondents not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff/respondent no.1 over the plot in dispute.
The trial court by order dated 13.12.2018 after hearing appellant and respondents granted injunction restraining defendant, i.e., appellant from interfering into the peaceful possession over the plot in dispute. The trial court while allowing the application, has considered the fact that lease deed has been executed for a period of 90 years which will subsist upto 2080. Further, the appellant has failed to show that any material alteration or violation of the permission has been done by the respondents. The trial court found that plaintiff, i.e., respondent no.1 has made out a prima facie case and that balance of convenience lay in favour plaintiff that and if no interim injunction is granted, the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss.
Counsel for the appellant has contended that respondent no.1 was allowed to sublet the portion of aforesaid plot for a purpose specified in the permission letter, i.e., to establish a manufacturing automobiles workshop unit or service centre whereas, respondent no.1 has sublet the aforesaid portion for establishing T.V.S. showroom which is in violation of the terms and conditions of the permission granted to sublet the part of plot in dispute.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the appellant could not demonstrate from the record that the finding of the trial court that the appellant has failed to produce till date any evidence to show that respondents have violated any condition of the permission letter is perverse and against the record. Further, the court below on the basis of material and evidence on record found a prima facie case in favour of respondent no.1, and further the respondent no.1 has established that the balance of convenience lays in his favour and respondent no.1 shall suffer irreparable loss in case injunction is not granted. In the opinion of the Court, there is no illegality in the order of the trial court.
However, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that a direction may be issued to the court below to decide the suit expeditiously.
It is needless to say that the trial court would decide the suit expeditiously. It is further provided that the court below shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties and if the court below is of the opinion that any of the adjournment is necessary, the same shall be granted on imposing the cost of Rs.500/- per day.
Thus, for the reasons given above, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed subject to observations noted above. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 28.2.2019 Sattyarth