IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR M.F.A.NO.2694 of 2019(CPC) BETWEEN:
M/s Uno-In Quality Business Hotels, A Proprietorship concern, having its place of business at No.90 & 90/1, Hotel Sabharwal Residency, K.H.Road (Double Road), Opposite to KSRTC office, Bengalore-560027 Represented herein by its Proprietor- Mr.Uno Iqbal, Aged about 42 years, S/o Mr.Mohammed Wahab. …Appellant (By Sri. K.Arunkumar, Senior Advocate for Sri.Kashyap N.Naik, Advocate) AND:
1. Mrs. Kanwaljeet Kaur Sabharwal Wife of late Joginder Singh Sabharwal, Aged about 71 years, Residing at No.45/1, 11th Cross, Wilson Garden, Bangalore-560027.
2. Mr.Gurupreet Singh Sabharwal, S/o late Joginder Singh Sabharwal, Major, Residing at No.45/1, 11th Cross, Wilson Garden, Bangalore-560027. ... Respondents (By Sri.Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, Advocate) This MFA is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the order dated 18.03.2019, passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.883/2019 on the file of the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH No.27), Bengaluru, dismissing the I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.
This appeal coming on for Admission this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT The plaintiff in O.S.No.883/2019 on the file of XII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 18.3.2019 rejecting the application filed by him under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
2. Heard the appellant’s counsel and the respondents’ counsel.
3. The appellant’s counsel submits that the appellant-plaintiff is a tenant under the respondents in respect of the suit schedule property. Since it was sought to be evicted without due process of law, he had to file a suit for injunction to restrain the defendants from dispossessing him without due process of law. He argues that the trial Court dismissed the application coming to the conclusion that the apprehension expressed by the plaintiff about attempt to dispossess it unlawfully was unfounded. He argues that there is a clear assertion in the written statement that the defendants have every right to dispossess the plaintiff and this statement is enough to infer that there is threat to plaintiff’s possession.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents do not have any intention to dispossess the appellant-plaintiff without due process of law and in fact an eviction notice has been issued. All that he submits is that, according to the terms of compromise agreement, respondents are business partners with the plaintiff and that they have to get 9% share in the profit made from the sale of liquor. For the purpose of inspecting the books of accounts, the defendants may be given liberty to enter the schedule premises.
5. Since the learned counsel for respondents has made a statement that the respondents do not have any intention to dispossess the appellant without due process of law and that eviction notice has already been issued, the plaintiff’s apprehension that he will be dispossessed illegally does not stand to reason and it is unfounded also. For this reason, this appeal does not survive. Statement made by the respondents’ counsel is placed on record.
6. On perusal of the compromise agreement, it is seen that the defendants are entitled to 9% liquor margin from the sale of liquor. This compromise agreement is not disputed by the appellant-plaintiff. Therefore, for the limited purpose of inspecting the books of accounts, the defendants should have the liberty to enter the schedule premises. This liberty is accorded. However, this should not be misconstrued by the defendants to disturb the plaintiff’s business or possession.
With this observation, appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp