VIJAY KUMAR Vs. B. K. THAPPER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY a lease deed dated 12-12-1966 Dharmarth Trust, plaintiff No. 2 here, leased out a theatre in the City known as 'Hari Talkies' together with its machinery, fittings and furniture to the defendants here, S/Sshri B.K. Thapper and Ram Prakash, for a period of ten years effective from 10-10-1964. Under Clause 15 of the lease deed it was stipulated that, upon the expiration of the period of lease, the lessees will hand over the possession of the demised premises together with all machinery, fittings and furniture as also the improvements made by them during the continuance of the lease to the lessor. The term of the lease expired on 30-9-1974. Long before that date, on 13-2-1974, Dharmarth Trust, through its counsel, Mr. Janak Lal Sehgal served a notice on the lessees asking them to deliver the possession on due date failing which it was added, that the lessees will be liable to pay damages for the use and occupation of the demised property at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per month till such time they handed back the possession to the lessor. Subsequently, by a lease deed dated 27-9-1974, which has since been registered, Dharmarth Trust leased out the theatre and Talkie equipment to Mr. Vijay Kumar plaintiff No. I here, for a period of ten years commencing from 2-10-1974. On 28-9-1974 Mr. B.K. Thapper and Mr. Ram Prakash filed a suit in the Court of Sub Judge (CJM), Jammu praying for permanent injunction restraining the new lessee from disturbing or interfering with their possession of the leased premises. An ad interim order of maintaining status quo was issued by the Sub-Judge, C. J. M. Jammu. It was subsequently vacated on an application made by the lessor and the new lessee whereby they undertook not to evict the erstwhile lessees except in due course of law. Thereafter a dispute arose between the parties as regards possession which travelled into the Court on a motion made by the police and has since been determined by Sub-Registrar, Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, by his judgment dated 17-12-1974 whereby he has declared the erstwhile lessees to be in possession of the demised premises and forbidden disturbance until they are evicted in due course of law. On 16-12-1974, that is, one day before the date of the judgment, the new lessee and the lessor filed this suit on the original side of this Court for declaration that the plaintiff No. 1 was in possession of the theatre and the Talkie equipment and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their employees, agents and servants from interfering with his possession: and, in the alternative, for ejectment of the defendants from the disputed property including the machinery fittings, furniture and the improvements made therein.

(2.) GIVING a background of the events stated above, which are not disputed, th plaintiffs have stated in their plaint that with a view to cover up the increased expenditure on account of expansion in its field of activities, the Dharmarth Trust wanted to lease out the disputed property on better financial terms than before, after the lease in favour of the defendants had expired. With this object in view they formulated certain proposals which were put to the defendants, but these proposals were not acceptable to them. Plaintiff No. 1, however, accepted the proposals and as such by a lease deed dated 27-9-1974, a lease was granted of the disputed property in his favour effective from 2-10-1974. The defendants entered into negotiations with him as a result of which they voluntarily surrendered the possession in favour of plaintiff No. 2 on 2-10-1974 who, in turn, delivered the same to plaintiff No. 1 on the same day. It is added that the surrender of possession was conditioned to the payment of Rs. 50,000/- by plaintiff No. 1 to the defendants as also to the defendants being permitted to sell tickets in respect of the cinema shows exhibited on 2-10-1974 which the said plaintiff fulfilled and posted his own gatekeepers and other staff at work, but at about 11-30 in the night, after the last show was over, the defendants started instigating their men to remove the gatekeepers and other staff posted by plaintiff No.1 and tried to dispossess him with the result that the law and order machinery came into motion and, to begin with, clamped Section 144, Cri. P. C. in the premises of the theatre and then followed it up by taking proceedings under Section 145, Cri. P. C.

(3.) THE short question for determination is whether on the facts and circumstances of the present case a receiver can be justifiably appointed.