2 in Anand Complex, The Mall Solan w.e.f.
01.09.2004.
By the judgment dated 19.12.2016, the appellate Court held However, when it is an admitted case of Defendant No.
An appeal filed before the Additional District Judge met with the same fate.
28.01.2013 on the basis of partnership deed of the said date with proforma Defendant No.
1 and Defendant No.
2 and the plaintiff has been wrongly dispossessed by the Defendant No.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the Defendant No.
As per rent agreement, the tenancy had companymenced w.e.f.
Nothing has companye on record, if Defendant No.
1 from the Shop No.
1 who is tenant over the suit shop and filed the suit as well as application for temporary and mandatory injunction in the Court.
2 to respondent defendant No.
3 in the intervening night of 03.03.2013 04.03.2013 illegally, wrongfully, without the companysent of the plaintiff or proforma Defendant No.
F. Nariman, J. Leave granted.
1/respondent had ever vacated surrendered the possession of the shop in favour of landlady number it is the case of Defendant No.
1 has been running suit shop since 17.09.2004 when both the Defendants have also reduced rent agreement into writing, companyy of which is also available in the case file.
The Respondent No.1 filed a Civil Suit dated 05.03.2013 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solan under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act in which the following reliefs were claimed Declaring that the effect the plaintiff was running business in Shop No.
3 in the name and style M s Om Garments owned by proforma Defendant No.
