C.R. No. 6512 of 2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6512 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 1, 2011 Balkar Singh ................................................... Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation Patiala and another ................................................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ... RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) This Civil revision is for setting aside the order dated 5.2.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Patiala (Annexure P-4) and the order dated 10.9.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala (Annexure P-6). Balkar Singh is the legal heir of Harnam Singh who had taken the suit land on lease of `25/- per month vide Agreement dated 4.5.1962. Harnam Singh raised some boundary wall and constructed two Varandah and a room in C.R. No. 6512 of 2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] which he had been running the business of sale of construction material. Plaintiff's assertion is that after the death of Harnam Singh, he is running the business. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent No.1 from taking forcible possession. In the written statement, defendant took the stand that in the year 1967 respondent No.2 was put into possession as Harnam Singh had failed to pay the money to the Municipal Corporation. The Municipal Corporation issued a notice dated 23.11.1982 to Harnam Singh for payment of `12,313/- and another notice dated 24.12.1985 for payment of `8,318/-. These notices were received by Harnam Singh. Despite these notices, Harnam Singh failed to deposit the amount of lease. Defendant No.1 filed an application to the Municipal Corporation on 24.8.1998 requesting that he is a sub-lettee and is in possession of the property since 1967 and he is ready to deposit the amount of lease standing against Harnam Singh as well as transfer fee. He was allowed to do so and he deposited the lease money with the Municipal Corporation, Patiala. Thereafter, the map for construction of the building was approved on 15.12.2009 and a composite fee of `12,750/- was deposited. An agreement for lease at the rate of `3050/- per year was executed and defendant No.1 is regularly paying the lease amount. Possession of the plaintiff was denied specifically. C.R. No. 6512 of 2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] Vide order dated 5.2.2010 the trial Court dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. Reference has been made to letter No. 8115 dated 12.1.1968 (Annexure E2/21) and letter dated 31.1.1968 (Ex.D2/22) to show that lease in favour of Harnam Singh was terminated. The site plan for construction has been approved by the Municipal Corporation on 15.12.2009. Both the above facts have been considered while rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant and both the Courts have rightly held that the present appellant is not in possession of the suit property. In view of the above facts, the balance of convenience does not lie in his favour. The order dated 10.9.2011 does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Civil revision is dismissed. 1.11.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE