JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and the learned counsels appearing for the opposite party Nos.
(2.), 3 and 4. 2. At this stage it is relevant to record that opposite party No. 2. was erstwhile dealer inducted in the tenanted premises through the company and the opposite party No. 4 is his son. Opposite party No. 3 is
the landlord.
A complaint case was filed by the petitioner that certain premises were taken by it on lease. The premises were then allowed to be
used by the opposite party No. 2, a dealer of the petitioner. According
to the complaint, the understanding was that the induction of the
opposite party No. 2 in the premises was co terminus with his status as
dealer. the tenancy remaining with the company.
(3.)IT appears that the premises were handed over to the landlord -opposite party No. 3 directly. This led to institution of suit
Title Suit No. 136/2000, by the petitioner to restrain the dealer from
handing over possession to the landlord directly. The prayer for
injunction was also refused on 15.1.2000. It is not in controversy that
no appeal was preferred against this order. The contention is that
possession having been handed over before the order refusing injunction
was passed there was no occasion to prefer any appeal.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.