1 ao371-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.371 OF 2011 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 516 OF 2011 M/s. Rahul Enterprieses .. Appellant V/s. Jagtap Theatres & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. P. N. Joshi for the appellant. Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni i/b. Mr. Abhijeet Kulkarni for the respondents. ..... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : APRIL 28, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were extensively heard. However, the Appeal was adjourned thereafter from time to time as the parties were negotiating for settlement. However, the settlement could not be arrived at. 2 ao371-11 2. The challenge in this Appeal is to the Judgment and order dated 15th March, 2011 passed by the learned trial Judge by which the application for temporary injunction made by the appellant at Exhibit-5 has been rejected. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. 3. With a view to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it will necessary to make a brief reference to the facts. The suit premises subject matter of dispute is a structure of a “Cinema Theatre” at Pune which is more particularly described in paragraph one of the plaint. The suit premises comprises of ground floor consisting of booking office, store room, toilet, auditorium and canteen. It also comprises of second screen (auditorium), projection room, office, canteen, toilet, store room, electric panel room next to generator on the first floor. An air- condition plant room in Basement and passage as well as the projection room on the third floor is also a part of the suit premises. The suit premises also comprises of the open space to the East, South and North of the said premises/cinema alongwith the parking areas. The first respondent firm is the owner of the suit premises. The 3 ao371-11 substantive prayer made in the suit is for declaration that the appellant has a right to use the suit premises till 28th February, 2017 as a licensee of the respondents. The second prayer is for a direction to execute and register an agreement of leave and licence as per the terms incorporated in the registered agreement dated 13th January, 2006, executed by and between the parties. The next prayer is for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the rights of the appellant to use the suit premises and to carry on the business of theatre. 4. In the plaint, a reference has been made to the agreement of leave and licence dated 12th October, 2005. It is stated that as certain provisions were missing in the said agreement such as provision of conversion of the single screen cinema into multi screen cinema by the appellant, on 4th November, 2005, the respondents issued a letter to the appellant by which the appellant was allowed to run the theatre for a period of 59 months. It is alleged that it is stated in the letter that the respondents shall allow the appellant to run the theatre for a further period of 59 months. Thereafter, an Agreement dated 16th December, 2005, was executed by and between the 4 ao371-11 parties. The said agreement permitted the appellant to convert the single screen cinema into a multi screen cinema. It is stated in the plaint that the said agreement was not registered. Therefore, the parties executed the agreement dated 13th January, 2006. It is stated that proper stamp duty was paid on the said agreement dated 13th January, 2006, and the same was registered in the office of Sub Registrar. It is alleged that from the date of execution of the suit agreement, the appellant has been in exclusive possession of the suit premises. 5. Various averments have been made regarding obtaining licence, obtaining substantial loan from the Bank and also renovation and conversion of the theatre carried out by the appellant. It is stated that the work of renovation and conversion was estimated to take about 18 to 24 months and remaining period was not sufficient to recover even the 1/4th of the amount invested by the appellant. The Agreement admittedly provided for a licence period of 59 months from 1st April, 2006 to 28th February, 2011. It is stated that the said licence period of only 59 months was incorporated only for technical reasons. It is stated that for protecting and assuring the plaintiff, the 5 ao371-11 respondents issued a post dated letter dated 24th February, 2011, inter-alia stating that they had decided to allow the appellant to run the said theatre for further period of 59 months from 1st April, 2011 to 28th February, 2017. It is alleged that after issuing the said letter, the second to fourth respondents suggested that the date of 24th February, 2011 would not be proper and, therefore, white ink was applied on the date and below the said date, the date of 4th November, 2005 was put. It is contended that agreement dated 13th January, 2006 will have to be read with the said letter. 6. Reference has been made to the correspondence between the parties and notices issued by the respondents. It is stated that the appellant approached the respondent on number of occasions in January 2011 and requested respondents to execute a fresh leave and licence agreement. It is alleged that the respondents are desirous of terminating the agreement dated 13th January, 2006, and are not interested in acting upon promise to execute an agreement for further period from 1st April, 2011 to 20th February, 2017. The suit was filed on 18th February, 2011 in which an application for temporary injunction at Exhibit – 5 was made. The relief of 6 ao371-11 temporary injunction was sought restraining the respondents from obstructing or interfering the appellant from the running the theatre as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. 7. The said application was contested by the respondents by filing a reply and the written statement. Apart from various legal contentions, a contention raised that the relationship between the parties will be governed by the agreement dated 13th January, 2006. It is contended that the contents of letter dated 4th December, 2005 have never been acted upon. It is contended that after issuing the said letter, while executing the agreement, both the parties agreed that the period of licence shall be 59 months. The respondents contended that they never issued letter dated 25th February, 2011. It is contended that the appellant has created a false and concocted story to grab the theatre. The respondents stated that a letter which was mentioned as dated 24th February, 2011 was forwarded to them by fax on 12th June, 2009. The respondents pointed out that the said letter received by fax establishes an act of forgery on the part of the appellant. The contention of the respondents is that after 28th February, 2011, the appellant had no right to continue the 7 ao371-11 business of running the theatre. 8. The learned trial Judge considered the submissions made by the parties and recorded a prima facie finding that the letter dated 24th February, 2011, appears to be forged. The learned Judge observed that even going by the case of the appellant, the licence expired on 28th February, 2011, and the new licence was to commence on 1st April, 2011 and, therefore, on the date of filing of the suit, there was no cause of action. The learned Judge observed that even going by the plaint, the appellant was an unauthorized occupant of the suit premises from March 2011. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no dispute that the appellant was placed in possession of the suit property and extensive work of renovation was carried out by the appellant. He stated that all the facilities such as parking etc. are under control of the appellant and that the appellant has made huge investments on renovation and has converted the theatre consisting of one screen into a multi screen theatre. He submitted that the appellant has been placed in exclusive possession of the suit 8 ao371-11 premises. He submitted that even assuming that the appellant may not have any case in so far as extension for the further period of 59 months is concerned, a specific submission was made before the trial Court that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Krishna Rama Mahale Vs. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao [AIR 1989 Supreme Court 2097], the respondents have no right to dispossess the appellant and the respondents will have to adopt due process of law. He submitted that till such time the appellant is not evicted by following the due process of law, the appellant cannot be prevented from running the theatre. He pointed out that though this submission was specifically made, the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court which will apply to the facts of the case has been ignored by the learned trial Judge. He submitted that a limited protection that the appellant shall not be dispossessed without following due process of law ought to have been granted in view of the law which is well settled. He submitted that the appellant cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that the license came to an end 9 ao371-11 on 28th February, 2011, and, therefore, the appellant cannot carry on business from the said date. He urged that in any event, considering the conduct, the appellant is not entitled to any equitable relief. 11. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. For considering the first issue of existence of prima facie case, it must be noted here that the suit is not filed simplicitor for protecting the alleged possession of the appellant over the suit premises. The suit is for enforcing the alleged agreement between the parties by directing the respondent to execute a leave and licence agreement for the period from 1st April, 2011 to 28th February, 2017. A declaration has been claimed by way of a substantial relief that the appellant is entitled to use the suit premises till 28th February, 2017. Thus, on the plain reading of the plaint, the appellant has claimed protection on the basis of alleged agreement to continue the licence for a further period till 28th February, 2017 from 1st April, 2011. 12. Reliance was placed on a letter dated 4th November, 2005, in which there was a promise to extend the period of licence by a further period of 59 months. However, on 13th January, 2006, a 10 ao371-11 registered agreement of leave and licences was admittedly executed on which the appellant is placing reliance. The said agreement specifically provided that the licence will be of 59 months commencing from 1st April, 2006, and ending with 28th February, 2011. As the appellant is relying upon the said subsequent agreement, it is obvious that the appellant cannot rely on the earlier letter dated 4th November, 2005, and contend that the licence was agreed to be executed for a further period of 59 months after 28th February, 2011. Therefore, prima facie, we have to proceed on the footing that on the basis of the said agreement dated 13th January, 2006, the licence was to come to an end on 28th February, 2011. 13. Reliance was placed by the appellant in paragraph No.12 of the plaint on the alleged letter dated 24th February, 2011, by which it was allegedly agreed by the respondents to allow the appellant to run the theatre for further period of 59 months from 1st April, 2011 onwards. As far as this letter is concerned, the case made out by the appellant in the plaint reads thus: “To protect and assure the Plaintiff, the Defendants issued a post-dated letter dated 24.02.2010 inter-alia stating 11 ao371-11 that they had decided to allow the Plaintiff to run the said Theatre (Cinema) for further period of 59 months from 01.04.2011 to 28.02.2017 and requested to arrange for executing the registered agreement for the said period. The Plaintiff says that after issuing the said letter some discussion took place between the Defendant Nos. 2 to 4, the Defendants thought and therefore suggested to the Plaintiff that putting such date of 24.02.2011 would not be proper and therefore put white ink on the date “February 24, 2011” and below that put the date “November 4, 2005” i.e. date of the previous letter produced at Serial No.2. The xerox copy of the said letter dated February 24, 2011/November 4, 2005 is produced at Serial No.6 in this proceeding.” 14. The earlier part of paragraph No.12 of the plaint suggests that the letter was issued subsequent to the execution of agreement dated 13th January, 2006. However, the date on which the letter was issued is not set out in the plaint. It must be noted here that by letter dated 20th September, 2010, the advocate for the respondents informed the appellant that the period of agreement was upto 28th February, 2011. It was alleged that the appellant has committed a breach of agreement dated 13th January, 2006. In the reply dated 4th October, 2010 sent by the advocate for appellant, there is no specific reference to the said letter. As stated earlier, the execution of the said letter has been denied by the respondents and they have placed reliance on a letter of the same date which they received by fax in the year 2009. 12 ao371-11 This creates a serious doubt about the genuineness of the said letter pleaded in paragraph No. 12 of the plaint . The learned trial Judge has considered this aspect in paragraph No. 4 of the impugned Judgment. The learned Judge has discarded the theory of the appellant of change of date from 24th February, 2011 to 4th November 2005. 15. Perusal of the said letter on which reliance is placed by the appellant shows that the reference made therein is to the agreement dated 16th December, 2005, by stating that licence granted thereunder was to expire on 28th February, 2011. Surprisingly, there is no reference in the said letter dated 4th November, 2005/24th February, 2011 to the agreement dated 13th January, 2006. The date 16th December, is handwritten after striking out a date of November 2005. Even according to the case made out in paragraph No.12 of the plaint, the letter was issued after execution of the agreement dated 13th January 2006. Thus, prima facie, the said letter dated 4th November, 2005/24th February, 2011 appears to be doubtful. Even going by the said letter and taking the said letter as correct, the respondents never agreed to continue the licence immediately on 13 ao371-11 expiry of the earlier licence on 28th February, 2011. The alleged letter reads thus: “ You are running our Rahul Theater as agreement dated 16th Dec. 2005 for a period of 59 months, commencing from 1st April, 2006 and period of 59 months is going to expire on 28th February, 2011. As per our mutual agreement we have decided to allow you to run the said Theater for further period of 59 months. From 1st April, 2011 to 28th February 2017 you are therefore requested to arrange for executing the registered document for further period of 59 months. Please do the needful.” 16. Thus, the letter records that the respondents had agreed to allow the appellant to run the Theater for a period of 59 months from 1st April, 2011. Thus, taking the case of the appellant as correct, from 1st March, 2011 onwards till at least 31st March, 2011, the appellant could not have continued to run the Theater. 17. Specific performance of the alleged agreement contained in the alleged letter has been sought in the suit. Apart from the finding that the said letter is doubtful, theory of change of date set out in paragraph No.12 has been completely disbelieved by the learned trial Judge for valid and cogent reasons. Thus, the entire suit is based on 14 ao371-11 a communication which prima facie appears to be of suspicious nature. In any case, the said communication conferred rights on the appellant from 1st April, 2011. 18. This is not a suit simplicitor for preventing dispossession of the appellant without due process of law but the suit is for specific performance of alleged agreement contained in the letter which is prima faice of a doubtful nature. Thus, the finding on the issue of prima facie case has to be recorded against the appellant. 19. Grant of temporary injunction is always an equitable and discretionary relief. After having relied upon such a letter, now the appellant cannot fall back on the contention that their possession will have to be protected till the due process of law is followed. The reasons recorded by the learned trial Judge are more than sufficient to deny the equitable and discretionary relief to the appellant. Scope of Appeal under Clause (r) Rule 1 of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is always limited. There is no perversity or illegality in the impugned order. No case for interference is made out in this Appeal From Order. Accordingly, 15 ao371-11 Appeal is dismissed. 20. It is made clear that all contentions of the parties on merits of the suit are kept open and the observations made by the trial Court and this Court are merely prima facie observations. 21. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks continuation of ad-interim relief granted on 21st March, 2011. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the said prayer. 22. It is directed that the ad-interim relief granted on 21st March, 2011, will continue to operate for a period of three months from today. 23. Civil Application No.516 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE