Badar Durrez Ahmed JUDGMENT
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. This order shall dispose of is No. 2061/2005 and is No. 4326/2005. The former application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC') wherein the plaintiff has prayed that the defendants be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit premises pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit. The second application (IA No. 4326/2005) has been filed on behalf of the defendants under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking permission of this Court for withdrawal of the statement made by the Senior Counsel for the defendants on 16.03.2005 before this Court. The other prayer made in this application is that the application filed by the plaintiff under Order under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of CPC (IA No. 2061/2005), be heard and disposed of. The statement made by the learned senior counsel on 16.03.2005 which the defendants seek to withdraw reads as under :-
Learned counsel for the defendants make a statement on behalf of the defendants that without prejudice to their plea that the plaintiff is a pure licensee and has no right to remain in the premises in question after termination of the license, the defendants assure this Court that till the next date of hearing, status quo shall be maintained in regard to the premises in question.
2. It is clear that the decision on the plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of CPC would take care of the defendants request for withdrawal of the statement referred to above. To appreciate the submissions made by the parties for and against the passing of ad interim orders restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property, it would be necessary to give a brief background of the facts.
3. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of tours and travel. The defendant No. 1 is a five star hotel by the name of Hotel Imperial. Defendant No. 2 is a partnership firm which is alleged to be running and maintaining the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 3 is said to be a partner in defendant No. 2. The plaintiff, it is alleged, has been occupying rooms within the premises of defendant No. 1 since 1975. During the period 1975-1989, the plaintiff was allegedly occupying six rooms. From 1989 up to 1996 the plaintiff was in occupation of four rooms. It is alleged by the plaintiff that in 1996 the defendant No. 1 began exerting pressure and threatened the plaintiff to vacate the said four rooms as a result of which, the plaintiff was constrained to file Suit No. 1593/1996 before this Court praying for an injunction against being dispossessed by the defendant No. 1. During the pendency of the said Suit No. 1593/1996 the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 arrived at a mutual settlement. They made a joint compromise application, pursuant to which this Court recorded the compromise and passed a decree in terms thereof on 05.11.1996. In terms of the compromise decree two rooms (room Nos. 4 and 5) within the premises of defendant No. 1 were occupied by the plaintiff. It is alleged in the plaint that although the plaintiff has been occupying the said two rooms in terms of the compromise decree and have been complying with and continue to comply with all the terms and conditions contained in the said decree, the defendants have once again threatened the plaintiff with eviction from the said two rooms and it is in this background that the present suit has been filed, inter alia, for a declaration that the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the said two rooms and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the said two rooms. A typed copy of the decree has been placed at page No. 48 of the documents file. The terms of the decree are as under:-<........