Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.

IA No. 11822/2012 (under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC)

1. On 6.3.2014, arguments on the above application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 were heard and order was reserved. However, on account of a typographical error, in the order sheet, IA No. was shown as 11823/2013.

2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific performance and permanent injunction in respect of premises allotted to the plaintiff at Akbar Bhawan Annexe, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff was allotted the premises ground/lower ground floor at Akbar Bhawan Annexe, Chanakya Lane, New Delhi by the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) for running a restaurant-cum-banquet hall and allied trade.

3. As per the plaintiff, on 30.05.2002 notice inviting tender was issued by NDMC for 9657 sq. ft. space under the category of office spaces/shops/stalls etc. Mr. Devraj, the erstwhile Director of the plaintiff company, offered a rate of Rs. 36.99 per sq. ft. for the purposes of restaurant-cum-banquet hall and allied trade.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that the offer made by the plaintiff was considered and put up before the Chairman, NDMC, who approved the offer on 25.2.2002 and on 3.07.2002 acceptance letter was issued by the NDMC to Mr. Devraj and he was asked to form a partnership/private limited company in whose name the licence deed was to be executed. Accordingly, the plaintiff company was incorporated.

5. On 24.9.2002, a licence deed was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant NDMC. The term of the licence stipulated a period of 10 years. As per the plaintiff, the premises were in a dilapidated state and, accordingly, the plaintiff invested a huge amount in renovation and repair of the premises and put the premises to use for commercial venture only in March, 2003. On 7.10.2002, an additional agreement was executed between the plaintiff and defendant in respect of adjacent area to the suit premises as “GREEN PATCH”.

6. As per the plaintiff on 23.07.2003 the plaintiff was intimated by the defendant that the plaintiff should pay the licence fee in accordance with the area under his occupation and also that the plaintiff had encroached upon open space measuring 24361 sq. ft.

7. On 25.7.2003, an FIR was allegedly registered against the Chairman and the other officials of the defendant alleging that the said Chairman and officers had conspired with the Directors of the plaintiff to create favourable conditions for the Plaintiff by changing land use and ignoring and overriding other objections. On 12.08.2003, a show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff to show cause as to why the licence deed should not be cancelled or revoked. There was also a dispute pertaining to the area in occupation of the plaintiff and also the licence fee paid by the plaintiff. However, the said dispute is not germane for the purposes of deciding the present injunction application.

8. As per the plaintiff, the licence deed dated 24.09.2002 contains a renewal clause with the option (to be exercised by the plaintiff for renewal/extension of the licence deed for another 10 years). In the plaint, the plaintiff has extracted only a part of the said renewal clause as under :

“...... it shall be renewed/extended for a further period as decided by the Licensor from the day following the date on which the term of the Licence expires..... provided Licencee exercises his option for renewal of Licence in writing for another term of 10 years within 60 days before the date of expiry in the present Licence and the Licencee completes all the required formalities for renewal of Licence within the stipulated period to the satisfaction of the Licensor, it shall be presumed that the Licensee is not interested in further extension/renewal of his/ her Licence beyond the date of expiry of the term of the Licence.....”

9. As per the plaintiff, the plaintiff exercised its option for renewal/extension of the licence deed for another 10