AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.—This application has been made the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Order I Rule 10 and Section 151
CPC seeking leave to amend the plaint.
It is submitted by the plaintiff that at the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiff was not aware that the defendant was not a tenant in the suit
property No. 1, Shankar Vihar, Vikas Marg, New Delhi-110092 but was the owner of the premises. However, the plaintiff later on made inquiries
about the ownership of the premises and learnt that the premises was owned by the defendant''s nears and dears. The ground floor of the premises
was owned by Mrs. Manisha Bhatia, wife of Mr. Sachin Bhatia and Mrs. Renu Bhatia, wife of Mr. R.K. Bhatia. The first floor was owned by Mr.
Satish Bhatia, defendant himself, who holds Power of Attorney from the previous owner although the Agreement to Sell was in favour of Mr.
Aman Bhatia, son of Mr. D.L. Bhatia and Mrs. Sunita Bhatia, wife of Mr. Satish Bhatia. The basement was owned by Mrs. Anila Bhatia, wife of
Mr. Naresh Bhatia (brother of the defendant) and second floor was owned by Mrs. Anita Bhatia and wife of Mr. Bharat Bhushan Bhatia.
The plaintiff had entered into a Franchisee Agreement with the defendant, Mr. Satish Bhatia for running a slimming and beauty centre. The
Franchisee Agreement in detail gives the rights of the parties. The Franchisee Agreement does not relate to the premises except that the franchisee
was to be run in the premises in question. The Franchisee Agreement, in fact, relates to business of slimming and beauty using special technique
allegedly developed by the plaintiff. The Franchisee Agreement in detail provided the grounds on which it could be terminated by the plaintiff and it
also provided the effect of termination. One of the effects of termination or expiration was that the defendant could not run the same business in the
same premises or anywhere within five kilometers. It cannot make a difference whether the premises was under the tenancy of the defendant or it
was under ownership of the defendant. The defendant while entering the Franchisee Agreement had given an impression that the premises was
under his tenancy, but it is well known that the tenancy can be created even by a relative in favour of another relative. The plaintiff by way of this
amendment wants to make all the relatives of the defendant as parties to the suit only because they were either having Agreement to Sell in respect
of the premises or they were owners of the premises or they have right in the premises, despite the fact that none of these relatives are privity to the
contract between plaintiff and defendant.
The plaintiff in the plaint has made prayers against the defendant, his successors and representatives from opening and running a beauty salon in
1, Shankar Vihar, Vikas Marg, New Delhi-110092 and has sought a declaration that termination of agreement by the defendant was unlawful. He
has also sought a decree for return of equipment, machinery, furniture, etc., and for return of Confidential Operating Standard Manuals. He has
sought a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to make changes in the premises so that the same cannot be used for the purpose
of slimming and beauty clinic as it was only used under Franchisee Agreement. There is no relief sought by the plaintiff in respect of the title,
tenancy or ownership of the premises neither these issues are relevant for the purpose of deciding the effect of termination of the Franchisee
Agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant.
I consider that the subject matter of the suit does not call for introduction of all the persons related to the premises in the suit as defendants. The
plaintiff did not have any agreement with any of these persons and merely because each one of them has some interest in the premises would not
make them a party to the Franchisee Agreement nor they are necessary party for adjudicating the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant.
The amendment sought by the plaintiff to incorporate paragraphs regarding ownership of the premises and to make all owners as defendants are
totally unnecessary and uncalled for.
I find no force in the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The application is hereby dismissed.
C.S. (OS) No. 622 of 2009 & I.A. Nos. 4382/2009, 10231/2009
List on 17th February, 2010.