R.S.A. No. 972 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 972 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 2.3.2009 Jagdish Chander ....Appellant Versus Panchayat Samiti, Delhon ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Sanjiv Pandey, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 12.6.2006 and the first Appellate Court dated 15.11.2008. Briefly, the case of the appellant is that he had filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the respondent from dispossessing or causing to dispossess him forcibly from the shop No.2 which has been reflected in the site plan. It is pleaded that he is a tenant in the said shop for the last 22 years and is paying the monthly rent @ Rs.150/- and that the respondent has got an eviction order from the B.D.P.O., Ludhiana under the Public Premises Act in the year 1992 and thereafter the parties compromised the matter and the rate of rent was enhanced to Rs.204/- per month and the appellant R.S.A. No. 972 of 2009 (O&M) -2- was paying the rent regularly. In the month of June, 1999, the appellant paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent by way of a demand draft, and since he is enjoying the shop in dispute as a tenant, he be not dispossessed illegally from the same. The respondent contested the suit and pleaded that the appellant is in unauthorised occupation of the shop. A lease deed in his favour had been executed which was valid upto 31.3.1990 and thereafter he was liable to be evicted as no lease deed was executed in his favour. According to the terms of the lease deed the appellant was required to increase the rent at the rate of 10% after 31.3.1990 but the increased rent was not paid. Notices were served upon him on 16.3.1990 and 23.3.1990 for renewal of the lease deed but the appellant failed to comply with the same. Thereafter he was served with a registered notice dated 18.4.1990 requiring him to vacate the property but he failed to comply with the same. Accordingly, proceedings under Sections 4,5 and 7 of the Public Premises Act were initiated against him. The DDPO, Ludhiana exercising the powers of Collector, Ludhiana ordered his eviction. The appeal preferred by him before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala was dismissed on 10.3.1998. On 25.5.1999, the execution for eviction of the appellant and for recovery of Rs.56,493/- was filed. The stand taken up by the respondent was that he was evicted from the disputed property and its possession was delivered to the respondent vide order of the competent Court, but the appellant forcibly broke opened the locks of the respondent and entered into possession of the shop. A criminal case was also got registered against the appellant which was pending R.S.A. No. 972 of 2009 (O&M) -3- in the Court of Shri Gurnam Singh, J.M.I.C., Ludhiana. The compromise as pleaded by the appellant was denied as also the payment of Rs.5,000/-. It was pleaded that the appellant is in unauthorised occupation of the shop. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession over the suit property?OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether suit is not maintainable?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action?OPD 5. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the present ?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court, if so its effect?OPD 7. Whether the suit is barred under the provisions of Punjab Public Premises and Rent Recovery Act?OPD 8. Relief. The learned trial Court on appraisal of evidence came to the conclusion that the appellant is in unauthorised occupation of the shop in dispute and declined the relief of injunction to him. In appeal, the findings of the learned trial Court were affirmed. In the instant regular second appeal learned counsel for the R.S.A. No. 972 of 2009 (O&M) -4- appellant has contended that he is in possession of the disputed shop as a tenant for the last 22 years and has been paying the rent regularly. He contends that in a suit for injunction only possession has to be seen and the question of title etc. cannot be gone into. Reliance has been placed on Ramji Rai and another v. Jagdish Mallah (Dead) through L.Rs. & Another 2007(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 680 to bring home the aforesaid contention. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments. The appellant has not been able to establish that the valid lease deed, on the basis of which he was put in possession and which expired on 31.3.1990, was ever extended in his favour. Rather, it has been proved by the respondent that repeated notices were sent to the appellant and proceedings under the Public Premises Act were initiated and the eviction orders were passed pursuant thereto. The appeals preferred by the appellant were also dismissed and thereafter the execution proceedings were initiated for his eviction as also for recovery of Rs.56,493/- An application for police help was also moved as there was apprehension of breach of peace. All these orders and the relevant notices have been duly placed on record and proved. The proceedings for taking police help is also on record. In view of the oral and documentary evidence on record, which has been produced by the respondent, it becomes clear that it is the appellant who is proved to be the tenacious tenant by clinging on to the property even when valid and legal orders have come into existence requiring him to vacate the premises. In this view of the R.S.A. No. 972 of 2009 (O&M) -5- matter, the civil court cannot grant injunction to defeat the orders which have legal foundations and have been passed pursuant to the remedies available to the owner of the property. The appellant by his conduct has tried to frustrate these orders and the present proceedings can at best be termed to be an abuse of the process of law. In the wake of the aforesaid overwhelming evidence, which points to the status of the appellant to be that of a trespasser, the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be faulted with. Given the peculiar set of circumstances, when the respondent despite the valid and legal orders has been forced to litigate against the appellant on a totally misconceived suit and also for the reason that the appellant is continuing on the property without any basis, it is directed that possession of the shop be taken from him with the police help within a period of one month from today. The appeal is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/-. Copy of the order be sent to the respondents. 2.3.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss