REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1544 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1544 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: 31 st MARCH, 2011 Navneet Kumar .... Appellant Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority & another. .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for the appellant. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff – Navneet Kumar having failed in both the courts below has approached this court by way of instant second appeal. Plaintiff-appellant filed suit against respondents/defendants i.e. Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and its Estate Officer, alleging that the plaintiff is tenant in the disputed booth, but he has received copy of notice dated 23.05.2002 issued by defendant No.2 Estate Officer under Section 18(1) (b) of the HUDA Act alleging that the original allottees were in unauthorized occupation of the disputed booth and the same should be vacated within 30 days of the receipt of the notice. Opportunity of hearing was granted to the original allottees for 05.06.2002 to show cause as to why eviction order be not passed, but the plaintiff received the said notice on 06.06.2002 i.e. after expiry of the date of hearing. The plaintiff accordingly challenged the said notice in the suit being null and void and also claimed permanent injunction. The defendants alleged that the disputed booth was allotted by the REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1544 of 2011 -2- defendants to Subhash Chander etc., but defendant No.2 Estate Officer resumed the said booth under Section 17 of the HUDA Act vide order dated 06.01.1993 and the said resumption order has attained finality. Consequently, neither the original allottees nor anybody else is entitled to occupy the disputed booth. The impugned notice is legal and valid. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 27.10.2010 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 15.02.2011. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff is tenant in the disputed booth under the allottees and therefore, the plaintiff cannot be evicted from the disputed booth by the defendants. The contention is completely untenable and meritless. Resumption order under Section 17 of the HUDA Act was passed on 06.01.1993. The said order has attained finality. The plaintiff as per his own version come into picture vide rent note dated 29.05.1996 i.e. more than three years after the passing of the resumption order. However, after passing of the resumption order, neither the allottees nor the plaintiff claiming under the allottees is entitled to occupy the disputed booth. There is, therefore, no infirmity in impugned notice issued by the defendants. The plaintiff has been rightly non-suited by the courts below. Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below against the plaintiff-appellant does not suffer from any infirmity, much less illegality or perversity so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1544 of 2011 -3- much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the plaintiff-appellant may be granted some time to vacate the disputed booth and to handover its peaceful vacant possession to the defendants. The prayer is genuine because the plaintiff-appellant is allegedly occupying the disputed booth since the year 1996 i.e. for almost 15 years and is fighting the instant litigation for almost nine years. However, plaintiff-appellant has to be subjected to some conditions to allow this prayer. In view of the aforesaid, the instant second appeal, being meritless, is dismissed in limine. However, the plaintiff-appellant is granted four months' time to vacate the disputed booth and to handover its peaceful vacant possession to the defendants/respondents, subject to the condition that the appellant shall within fifteen days from today furnish undertaking by way of affidavit before the defendants undertaking to vacate the disputed booth and to handover its peaceful vacant possession to the defendants within four months from today. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 31st March, 2011 'raj'