PRAKASH KRISHNA,J. - (1.) THE petitioner who is plaintiff of suit no. 5 of 2008 has approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 13-1-2009 passed by the appellate court, allowing the appeal and setting aside the order granting ad interim injunction order granted in his favour.
(2.) FACTS of the case are not much in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) took 'Ice Producing Unit', situate in premises no. 80/80, Cooperganj, Kanpur, which is owned by the respondent no. 2 herein (referred to hereinafter as defendant) on licence for running the said Ice Producing Unit. Initially, the father of the plaintiff was lincencee who took the said unit on licence and started running the Ice Manufacturing Unit in the year 1989 and paid the licence fee till 1996. Thereafter, an agreement was entered into between father of the plaintiff and the defendant for a period of five years w.e.f. 1-4-1997. After the death of his father, the plaintiff entered into fresh agreements from time to time. Lastly, indisputably on 25-3-2002, the plaintiff took the said unit as licencee for a period of five years ending on 31-3-2007 on payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- per year w.e.f. 1-4-2003. Earlier the licence fee was Rs. 2,25,000/- per annum. The defendant, on the request of the plaintiff, permitted to use certain open area of the factory and consequently, the licence fee was enhanced from Rs. 2,25,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/-. It is also not in dispute that the licence period has expired and there is no fresh licence deed in any manner in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff in-spite of expiry of the licence period has not handed over the said unit to the defendant and filed suit no. 5 of 2008, wherein an application for grant of temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit, giving rise to the present writ petition, was filed, on the allegations that the defendant is trying to evict the plaintiff otherwise than due course of law. The said application for grant of temporary injunction was hotly opposed and contested by the defendant and it was pleaded that since the licence period has expired, the plaintiff has no right to use the said Ice Manufacturing Unit. The trial court, after hearing the parties, granted temporary injunction order on 29-1-2008 and injuncted the defendant not to evict the plaintiff without taking recourse to judicial process and not to interfere in the manufacturing work of the plaintiff in any manner. It has been further provided that the plaintiff would be liable to pay licence fee for the period he remains in occupation of the unit and will not remove the plants and machineries from the disputed unit as was given to him on licence. The said order was challenged in appeal no. 52 of 2008 successfully. The court below, by the impugned order, has held that on the admitted facts, the licence period having expired, the plaintiff was under legal obligation to hand over the unit in good working condition to the defendant which he failed. The licence agreement has come to an end on 31-3-2007 which has not been renewed subsequently and the electric connection was also disconnected with the consent of the plaintiff and it was not in existence at the time of institution of the suit, but the plaintiff in a clandestine manner got the electric connection in his name. The plaintiff having failed to prove his possession, is not entitled for any interim relief.
(3.) HEARD Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Senior Counsel along with Ms. Tahira Kazmi for the petitioner and Sri V.C. Misra, learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondent/defendant.;