R.S.A. No. 615 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 615 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 6.5.2009 Arjun Dev ...Appellant. Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. V.M. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Imma Singh Kang, DAG, Haryana for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for respondents No.7 to 10. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The plaintiff having lost before the courts below has filed the present regular second appeal in this Court against the judgment and decree dated 29.8.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, affirming that of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal dated 6.2.2007 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction was dismissed. The facts necessary, according to the plaintiff, for the disposal of the present appeal are that defendant No.3 rented out its R.S.A. No. 615 of 2008 (O&M) -2- open plot shown by letters ABCDEF in the site plan attached with the plaint, in Ward No.15, Mohalla Palledaran Hodal (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”) at a monthly rent of Rs.500/- for a period of 10 months in an open auction which was held on 20.12.2002 and the plaintiff being the highest bidder, was put into the physical possession of the same. It was pleaded that after auction of the suit property, defendant No.3 received rent of three months amounting to Rs.1500/- from the plaintiff on 24.12.2002 vide receipt No. 100/94. Besides this, defendant No.3 received a sum of Rs.30,000/- as security from the plaintiff at the time of auction vide receipt No.100/2. It was further pleaded that the tenancy of the suit property was cancelled by defendant No.2 at the instance of defendants No.4 to 10 without giving any opportunity of being heard to the plaintiff and had also got deposited Rs.50,000/- as security and Rs.800/- as rent from defendant No.7 vide order dated 21.1.2003. According to the plaintiff, the said order was illegal, null and void, without jurisdiction and as such would not affect his tenancy rights over the suit property. The plaintiff requested the defendants not to interfere in his peaceful possession over the suit property and not to cause any obstruction and hindrance in the construction work over the same but they did not pay any heed which gave rise to the filing of the suit for permanent injunction. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants by filing three sets of written statements. Defendants No.1 and 2 in their joint written statement besides raising various preliminary objections pleaded that no public auction took place at the spot and defendant No.3 had completed only the paper formalities. Many complaints were R.S.A. No. 615 of 2008 (O&M) -3- made to the SDO (Civil) on 19.2.2003 regarding the unfair and illegal auction conducted by defendant No.3, who cancelled the auction in public interest and re-ordered fresh open auction after due munadi and had also informed the Deputy Commissioner vide his office letter dated 21.1.2003. It was further pleaded that the Deputy Commissioner after issuing a show cause notice to the Secretary, finally suspended the alleged auction and approved the action of the SDO (Civil) regarding the fresh public auction. It was also pleaded that as a precautionary measure, the SDO (Civil) ordered the complainants to deposit Rs.50,000/- as security and Rs.800/- as rent prior to the holding of the fresh re-auction in support of their claim. Defendant No.3 in his separate written statement pleaded that at the time of cancellation of the said tenancy of the plaintiff qua the suit property, defendant No.2 had not taken the elected body of the Municipal Committee into confidence. It was further pleaded that the status quo order had been passed qua the suit property and the answering defendant was bound by the said order. Defendants No.4 to 10 in their joint written statement pleaded that no public auction took place at the spot and the plaintiff and defendant No.3 manipulated and forged the pamphlet and munadi report. It was pleaded that defendant No.7 had already deposited Rs.50,800/- on 21.1.2003 and was ready to pay Rs.800/- per month as rent. According to them, the alleged rent of Rs.500/- per month was a secret deal between the plaintiff and defendant No.3 as no rent note had ever been got registered and executed in favour of the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that on the complaint of the answering defendants, an R.S.A. No. 615 of 2008 (O&M) -4- enquiry was made by defendant No.2 and it was found that fraud and misrepresentation had been practised by the plaintiff and defendant No.3, and then defendant No.2 requested defendant No.1 to cancel the said forged auction who had ample powers to cancel the alleged lease deed. The other averments made in the plaint were denied by the defendants and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. On appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties on the issues framed in this case, the trial court held that the plaintiff had established that he entered into the possession of the suit property as lessee by way of auction but he was under obligation either to hand over the possession or to get extension of lease period on the expiry of the lease period of 10 months in a legal way but he failed to adopt the said course and treated the plaintiff as trespasser. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 6.2.2007. The plaintiff took the matter in appeal and the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 29.8.2007 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgments with their assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant has made an endeavour to persuade this Court to re-appreciate the evidence available on record so as to differ with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below. However, he could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments and decrees warranting interference by this court in the regular second appeal. The courts below had recorded a R.S.A. No. 615 of 2008 (O&M) -5- concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff had not come to the court with clean hands and, therefore, was not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. Both the courts had recorded that once the lease period had expired, the plaintiff could not claim or regularize his lease by paying rent and in such a situation, the possession of the plaintiff could not be considered as authorized possession. The appellant has filed C.M. No. 2002-C of 2008 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leading additional evidence. The documents now sought to be produced by way of additional evidence has no relevancy with the controversy involved herein as the suit was filed in 2003. The application is, thus, rejected. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court. Finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. May 06, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE