JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 8th December, 2003 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge in MCA No.194/2003.
2. Respondent No.1 was allotted a shop by the NDMC bearing No.71, Mohan Singh Palace, Baba Kharag Singh Marg, New Delhi. It seems that he was carrying on the business of selling fruit juice. He is said to have entered into a partnership deed dated 23rd September, 1983 with the Petitioner who is his son.
3. Some differences seem to have arisen between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.1 was ousted from possession of the shop by the Petitioner who is now carrying on the business of selling garments.
4. According to the Petitioner, Respondent No.1 began to interfere in his possession of the suit premises and, therefore, he filed Suit No. 483/2002 for a permanent injunction. On an application filed by the Petitioner, an ex parte order of status quo was passed by the learned Trial Court but this application was eventually dismissed on 20th September, 2003. The Petitioner has not placed on record the order dated 20th September, 2002 passed by the learned Trial Court. The fact, however, is that the injunction application was dismissed.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner filed MCA No.194/2003 which came to be dismissed by the impugned order.
6. An attempt was made to try and see if the parties could resolve their disputes but this was not possible.
7. The Petitioner submitted that he is paying a sum of Rs.2,600/- to Respondent No.1 and he is willing to pay this amount or any further amount for retaining possession of the suit premises. Respondent No.1, on the other hand, is an old man who is hard of hearing and, accordingly, I had requested Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Advocate to assist in the matter as an amices Curiae. I must say that he has taken a lot of trouble in discussing this case with Respondent No.1 and has ably presented submissions on his behalf. It was pointed out by Mr. Sethi that Respondent No.1 has brought up his entire family from the running of the shop and that he has no intention of surrendering possession in favor of the Petitioner in view of the less than cordial relations between them.
8. It was submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that since his client is in settled possession of the suit premises, he should not be ousted from the shop. On the other hand, it was submitted by learned counsel for Respondent No.1 that the shop was allotted in the name of Respondent No.1 and he could not have parted with possession of the shop to anyone else. It is possible that he may be accused of having sublet the shop or created third party interest and that by itself may lead to cancellation of the allotment which will not serve the purpose of the Petitioner or Respondent No.1.
9. The learned Senior Civil Judge found no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Trial Judge primarily because Respondent No.1 was a licensee of NDMC and he could not have put anyone else in possession of the suit premises. The learned Senior Civil Judge found it strange that the allottee of a shop is having to run around for possession whereas the Petitioner who has no right over the shop claims that he is entitled to retain possession.
10. Since both the Courts below have not found any merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the Petitioner, all that can be said is that in order to succeed, the Petitioner must show some perversity in the orders passed by both the Courts below or some manifest error. Unfortunately, learned counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to do that.
11. There is no doubt about the fact that Respondent No.1 is an allottee of the shop in question and that he alone is entitled to be in possession thereof. He may part with possession of the shop with permission of the NDMC but it has been brought out that no such permission has been applied for or granted. Even if the NDMC knows that the Petitioner is in possession of the shop, that by itself would not legitimize his possession. Respondent No.1 being only a monthly licensee, is liable to have his license terminated for violation of the terms thereof and it is matter of good fortune for Respondent No.1 that NDMC has still not taken any such action.
12. The view expressed by both the Courts below is neither perverse nor manifestly erroneous. Consequently, I need not once again go into the question whether the Petitioner has made out any right to remain in possession of the suit premises. The contentions of the Petitioner have already been negatived by both the Courts below and they do not call for any interference.
13. Under the circumstances, I find no merit in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
14. The Petitioner says that he has been paying Rs.2,600/- per month to Respondent No.1. He is even willing to increase the amount or pay a lump sum to Respondent No.1 for settling their dispute. Of course, the suggestion is not acceptable to Respondent No.1. I think the figure of Rs. 2,600/- per month needs to be marginally increased and rounded off. Accordingly, I would direct the Petitioner to pay to Respondent No.1 a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month till he is in possession of the shop in dispute. Respondent No.1 may receive this amount without prejudice to his rights and contentions. The learned Trial Court will ensure that this direction is complied with.