RSA No.89 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.89 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14 - 7 - 2011 Raj Kumar Sharma ....Appellant v. Punjabi University, Patiala and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) This Regular Second Appeal has been instituted by the plaintiff, who remained unsuccessful before both the Courts below. Plaintiff had filed a suit for mandatory injunction against Punjabi University, Patiala (hereinafter to be referred as, `the University') seeking a direction that defendant-University should restore the water and electricity supply to Quarter No.E-61 situated in the University Campus, which was allotted to him during his course of employment in the University. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that he was appointed as a Driver-cum-Conductor by the defendant-University on 16.1.1989. Quarter No.E-61 was allotted to him in the University Campus by the University authorities on 12.2.1999. His services were suspended on 27.4.2004 and subsequently he was dismissed from service on 10.1.2005. The dismissal order has been assailed by the plaintiff by approaching the Labour Court. RSA No.89 of 2011 (O&M) [2] On 5.6.2007, the University authorities had disconnected the water and electricity connection. Upon notice, the defendants had filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff was in un-authorised possession of the suit quarter. Repeatedly letters and warnings were issued to him to hand over possession of the quarter. A penal rent was imposed and upto September, 2007 a sum of Rs.1,74,915/- was due. The trial Court formulated the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for. 2. Relief. Plaintiff himself appeared as PW1 and reiterated the averments made in the plaint, whereas the defendants examined Gajjan Singh, Assistant Registrar (General), Punjabi University as DW1. The trial Court held that the plaintiff has failed to bring on record any document from which it could be inferred that he has challenged the order of his termination. The Court further held that the plaintiff ceased to have any right over the suit quarter after having been dismissed from service. The lower Appellate Court affirmed the findings given by the trial Court and further held that the Collector, Sub Division, Patiala had passed order Ex.DW1/E under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as, `1973 Act') and the appellant was directed to hand over vacant possession of the quarter to respondent No.1 and even also to pay the penal rent. Mr.Sudhir Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant has stated that until the appellant is evicted from the suit quarter, the water and electricity cannot be denied to him. RSA No.89 of 2011 (O&M) [3] Undoubtedly, the employer – University had allotted the quarter to the plaintiff-appellant and his status is of a licensee. Water and electricity charges are to be borne out by him. An employee who has been dismissed from service cannot be allowed this facility without paying the charges. Non payment of charges will attract disconnection of amenities provided. A sum of Rs.1,74,915/- is due against him. Not even a single penny has been paid by him. Furthermore, the competent authority under 1973 Act has ordered eviction of the plaintiff-appellant. This Court had called upon counsel for the plaintiff-appellant to deposit some amount to show his bona fide. Counsel has stated that appellant is a dismissed employee and has no resources to deposit the amount. This Court also asked the learned counsel to give an undertaking that appellant will hand over vacant possession of the quarter to the University within a reasonable time. Counsel for the appellant, on instructions from the appellant, who is present in Court, has also declined to give any such undertaking. Prima facie this Court is of the view that both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact. Furthermore, a person who seeks discretionary relief of injunction should approach the Court with clean hands and his conduct should be above board. No question of law, much less a substantial one, arises for consideration before this Court. No interference is warranted. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) July 14, 2011. JUDGE RC