Niyaz Aalam vs Nagar Palika Parishad

Rohit Arya, J.—This appeal by plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17/7/2012 in Civil Appeal No. 7-A/2012 confirming the judgment and decree dated 1/4/2011 in Civil Suit No. 56-A/2010. Plaintiff''s suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed.

Plaintiff filed a suit inter alia contending that in a row eight shops have been constructed by Nagar Palika Parishad, Cantt, Guna at Guna-Ashoknagar road. These shops, therefore, are of the ownership of the Municipal Council. Shop No. 8 was allotted to Jagdish Harijan S/o. Nannulal Harijan. A rent deed was also executed by defendant/municipal council in his name. Plaintiff claimed to have taken on rent the aforesaid shop from Jagdish by depositing security amount on 27/6/1996 on monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. He is carrying on the business of tyre repairs under the name and style of Niyaz Tyre Works. On 5/7/1996 he was served with a notice issued by the Municipal Council alleging that plaintiff has unauthorizedly and illegally taken possession of four shops and was required to vacate the same. Having apprehended forcible dispossession, plaintiff filed the instant suit for permanent injunction.

Defendant filed written statement and denied the plaint allegations inter alia contending that the suit shops constructed by it were exclusively for the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and accordingly, the shops were allotted to the people of aforesaid communities. Two shops for a fixed period were given to one Premnarayan Rathore, but the same has also been sought to be vacated and proceedings are going on. It is submitted that plaintiff is not a lawful tenant of defendant as no agreement has been arrived at between the plaintiff and Municipal Council for leasing of suit shops. Besides, as per the agreement with Jagdish, the lease was for eleven months. Jagdish had no right to sublease the suit shops in favour of plaintiff. As such, plaintiff cannot be said to be in an authorized possession of the suit shops. On aforesaid pleadings, suit was prayed to be dismissed.

On aforesaid pleadings, trial court framed issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. Upon critical evaluation of entire evidence on record with due advertence to the pleadings of the parties, trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the first appellate court has re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. Admittedly, the suit shop was never allotted by Municipal Council to the plaintiff. As such, there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. Therefore, any agreement executed between the plaintiff and Jagdish for want of authority is illegal, hence, continuance of plaintiff over the suit shops is unauthorized. With the aforesaid findings, first appellate court confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

Having gone through the impugned judgments and material on record, this Court is of the view that the courts below have not committed any error of law. Findings so recorded are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. The entire gamut of the matter is in the realm of facts. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal warranting interference u/s 100 of CPC. In para 19 the first appellate court has held that plaintiff is in illegal possession of the suit shops. It is also a fact that defendant has issued notice to plaintiff for dispossession. This court entertains no doubt as regards adherence to the procedure established by law in the matter of evicting the plaintiff from the suit shops by the defendant-Municipal Council. The Second Appeal sans merits is hereby dismissed.