Avinash Gulati vs Shaturnjay
2012 Latest Caselaw 5049 Del

*               THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          CM(M)745/2012

                                              Date of Decision: 27.08.2012

AVINASH GULATI                                         ..... Petitioner
                           Through       Mr.Ashok Bhasin, Sr. Advocate
                                         with Mr. Venancio D'Costa and Mr.
                                         Anubhav Bhasin, Advocate
                    Versus

SHATURNJAY                                            ..... Respondent
                           Through       Mr. Arpit Bhalla, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeks assailing of order dated 08.06.2012 of Civil Judge, Rohini District Courts, Delhi.

2. The respondent had filed a civil suit being Suit no. 638/2011 against the petitioner seeking permanent injunction. His case in brief was that he was the tenant in respect of shop at G-50, Lower Ground Floor, Vardhman Market, West Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi under the petitioner @ Rs.1,200/- per month and that he was carrying his business of selling gift items, deodorants and artificial jewellery etc. under the name and style of M/s Archies Gift Shop. He had filed a suit alleging that the petitioner was threatening him to forcibly dispossess him from the suit shop. The shop had one shutter and two keys, one remaining with him and the second with the petitioner. He alleged that on 10.11.2011, the petitioner forcibly snatched the key from him and pressurized to give him in writing that he will vacate the shop immediately. He alleged that on 19.11.2011 again the petitioner came

with unknown persons and forcibly threw some of his articles and threatened him to vacate else he will implicate him in some false case. He lodged complaints with the police on 11.02.2012 and 12.02.2012.

3. The case of the petitioner was that respondent was his employee in the said shop for the last 10-12 years and that on 11.02.2012 he found the respondent having opened the shop with the duplicate key. Thereupon, he reported the matter to the police on 12.02.2012.

The learned trial court got inspected the tenanted shop by the local Commissioner and based on his report, passed an order under Section 151 CPC directing the petitioner to remove his lock and handover the duplicate key of the shop to the respondent. This order is assailed by the petitioner in the instant petition.

I have learned the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and also counsel for the respondent and perused the records.

The main grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed under section 151 CPC and not under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent was employee of the petitioner and the petitioner was running the business under the name and style of M/s Aakarshan Point and that the order passed by the Trial Court is erroneous on facts as also on law.

There cannot be any dispute that the Court had the inherent jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 151 CPC and grant injunction in the cases which were not fully covered within the four corners of Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. The inherent power of the Court can be exercised for meeting ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of the Court, though such power is to be exercised with caution and in rare cases, where there was specific remedy provided under the Statute. In the instant case, the Local Commissioner was

appointed who had taken photographs of the tenanted shop. He found the shop full of gift items. The respondent also placed on record invoices of purchase of gift items under the name and style of his business "Archies Gifts". On the contrary, the petitioner could not place anything on record to show that he was in possession thereof, or was carrying business or that the respondent was his employee. So much so, the Local Commissioner also noted the central lock blocked with M-seal and some electrical wire taped, suggesting towards removal of sub meter. There is nothing on record to substantiate the version of the petitioner that the respondent was the employee of the petitioner for the last 10-12 years.

Since the petitioner had put his lock on the shutter and sealed it, the trial Court finding it difficult to invoke the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, exercised the inherent discretion under Section 151 CPC to restore the tenanted premises back to the respondent.

I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the inherent power exercised by the Trial Court. The order that was passed by the Trial Court, is only an interim and which is subject to the final outcome of the trial and its adjudication.

There is nothing on record to interfere with the impugned order. The petition has no merit. Dismissed.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

AUGUST 27, 2012