- (1.) HEARD Mr.Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.N.K.Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Sachin Garg, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Through the instant writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 9.4.2008 (Annexure No.11), passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow on the application for temporary injunction registered as Application No.6 -c filed in Regular Suit No.536 of 2008:Sudhir S.Halwasiya versus Rakesh Pandey C.E.O. Kaya Merico, whereby the trial court issued direction to the parties to maintain status quo on the spot, as also the order dated 10.4.2008, passed by the Civil Judge (South) (Junior Division), Lucknow on the application for temporary injunction registered as 6 -c filed in Original Suit No.85 of 2008:Sudhir Halwasiya versus Surendra Kumar Setia, whereby the trial court has restrained the defendants from sub -letting out the property in dispute and handing over the possession to others.
(2.) THE petitioners have also challenged the order dated 10.4.2008, passed on the application No.C -13 moved under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for dismissal of the suit being under value and barred by the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (d). Briefly, the facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are stated as under: -
(3.) THE petitioners entered into a tenancy agreement with Uma Shanker Halwasiya and Sudhir Halwasiya (opposite party No.3) for 400 sq.ft. of shop situated at Halwasiya Court, 11 Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Hazratganj, Lucknow on 10.1.1994. In terms of agreement the petitioners were granted right to remove the common wall intervening the rented portion and portion owned by the petitioners themselves and thus in terms of tenancy agreement they have been in occupation and possession over the rented area alongwith their own area. The terms of agreement provided that the tenants shall use the shop in question for business purposes only and not for other purposes. In July, 2007, in furtherance of their business, the petitioners negotiated with M/s. Kaya Skin Care Limited of Mumbai for opening of an outlet. After negotiations they entered into a franchise agreement on 24.10.2007 in order to start franchise and carried out some renovation and alteration in the petitioners' owned portion as well as tenant's portion, during which the petitioners made some substantial changes in the internal lay out as without which it would not have been possible for them to carry out franchise of M/s.Kaya Skin Care Limited. In this manner they started franchise in the month of December, 2007. The petitioners' case is that since they had been getting the good response from the customers, the respondent No.3 approached them and insisted to include him as a partner on profit basis, but the petitioners' refused to accept his demand, therefore, the respondent No.3 started threatening and harassing the petitioners, in furtherance of which he also filed a Suit for permanent injunction, which is registered as Regular Suit No.85 of 2008, to restrain the petitioners from transferring the possession of property, which had been let out to the petitioners. The respondent No.3/plaintiff also prayed to restrain the petitioners from sub letting the property to someone else.;