Disposed

M/S Bbn Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Oct 2017CWP/18574/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Civil Writ Petition, the High Court directed the owner of a leased site to allow the petitioner, a brewery operator, to remove its belongings after an inventory was submitted, ruling that lease disputes between the owner and another party do not justify withholding the petitioner's property.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2 (owner) to allow the petitioner to remove its belongings from the demised premises after submitting an inventory within 15 days.

M/S Bbn Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

Vinod Kumar 2017.10.11 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶2

CWP No.18574 of 2017 (O&M)

¶3

[ 1 ]

¶4

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶6

CWP No.18574 of 2017 (O&M) Date of decision:09.10.2017

¶7

M/s BBN Beverages Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents

¶8

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

¶9

Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for respondents no.2 and 3.

¶11

Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent no.4. *****

¶12

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral)

¶13

Respondent no.2 is the owner of a site called “Manesar Club” and “Manesar Golf Club”, situated at Sector-5, IMT Manesar, District Gurugram and leased out its premises to respondent no.4, through respondent no.3, vide lease deed bearing vasika no.507 dated 28.05.2014, initially for a period of 10 years commencing from 10.09.2013. Respondent no.4 wanted to appoint an operator to assist it to operate, maintain and manage the bar by installing a temporary brewery plant to be run under the brand name “The Vermont Brew-Pub & Bar”. The petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent no.4 on 15.07.2014 to run and manage the said brewery. Respondent no.2 initiated legal action against respondent

¶14

CWP No.18574 of 2017 (O&M) [ 2 ]

¶15

¶16

no.4 by filing an application in terms of Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 before the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector, Gurugram, inter alia, on the ground of non-payment of lease money. The said petition was allowed on 30.03.2017 and respondent no.4 was directed to vacate the demised premises and hand over its vacant possession to respondent no.2. Respondent no.4 accordingly handed over vacant possession of the demised premises to respondent no.2 and, therefore, at present it is under their lock and key.

¶17

The petitioner, who had invested substantial amount for the purpose of running and managing the pub/brewery plant, has approached this Court against the order dated 30.03.2017 but at the time of preliminary hearing, only one prayer was made to direct respondent no.2 to allow it to remove its belongings from the demised premises, which has been sealed, after the statement was made by the Director of respondent no.4 that they would hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to respondent no.2. It is submitted that they had entered into an agreement with respondent no.4 and are, in no way, liable to pay anything to respondent no.2.

¶18

Shri Lokesh Sinhal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2, has submitted that since respondent no.2 has to recover the arrears of lease money from respondent no.4 and no recovery is to be made by it from the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner may be directed to approach respondent no.2 on any date for the purpose of recovering their belongings, after submitting an inventory to respondent no.2.

¶19

CWP No.18574 of 2017 (O&M) [ 3 ]

¶20

¶21

Learned counsel for respondent no.4, however, has denied its liability of arrears of lease money to respondent no.2, rather he has alleged that they have to recover the money from the petitioner.

¶22

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the available record, I am of the considered opinion that if respondent no.2 has to recover the lease money from respondent no.4, then it is a dispute between them, for which the petitioner is not concerned and if respondent no.4 has to recover anything from the petitioner, then again it is a dispute between them, for which respondent no.2 is not concerned but insofar as the petitioner and respondent no.2 are concerned, there is no outstanding amount against the petitioner of respondent no.2, for which they can withhold the belongings of the petitioner under their lock and key.

¶23

In view thereof, the present petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 to allow the petitioner to remove its belongings from the demised premises, after submitting an inventory of the same for their future reference.

¶24

The needful shall be done within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶25

October 09, 2017 ( Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge Whether speaking / reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

M/S Bbn Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Bbn Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhote Lal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sukhdeep Singh Bajwa Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ashutosh Mishra Vs Vice Chancellor, Kurukshetra University and Ors.

Parveen Kumar Advocate Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sikender Singh Vs Financial Commissioner, Haryana and Ors.

Leela Dhar Vs Financial Commissioner Haryana and Ors.