Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagtar Singh vs M.C. Phillaur on 1 May, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059755
RSA-2458-1994 2024:PHHC:059755
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
111
RSA-2458-1994
Date of decision: 01.05.2024
JAGTAR SINGH ..Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, PHILLAUR ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. V. Ram Swaroop, Advocate
for the appellant.
Ms. Jasvir Kaur, Advocate
for respondent.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. This plaintiff's regular second appeal against the judgment
passed by the First Appellate Court, which in turn has reversed the judgment
of the trial Court.
2. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case,
the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
3. The plaintiff filed the suit for possession of shop No.20 and for
recovery of amount including damages. It is the case of the plaintiff that
Municipal Committee, Phillaur, planned a shopping complex. The shops
were leased out through an open auction. The plaintiff was successful in
submitting his bid for shop No.20. He deposited certain amount and started
construction, however, when he was yet to complete the construction,
defendant issued notice under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, alleging that
construction is illegal. Thereafter, further construction was stopped and
defendant took over possession and completed construction. The Municipal
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059755
RSA-2458-1994 2024:PHHC:059755
Committee while contesting the suit claimed that construction was to be
completed within a period of six months from the date of approval of
auction, however, the plaintiff failed to construct the shop. Hence, earnest
money was forfeited and the tenancy was revoked. The rent was not
regularly paid by the plaintiff. Subsequently, on the request of the plaintiff,
he was allotted an alternative shop No.17 on 25.07.1986, however, he failed
to construct the shop.
4. The trial Court decreed the suit, however, the First Appellate
Court found that shop No.20 has been used for construction of octroi post
and the plaintiff opted for another shop No.17 but subsequently changed his
stance and filed the suit. The First Appellate Court also found that plaintiff
permitted the Municipal Committee to construct octroi post on plot No.20.
Thereafter, the suit has been filed. It was also found that the plaintiff already
opted for another shop No.17. Thus, the First Appellate Court held that
plaintiff has no right to seek possession of shop No.20.
5. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.
6. The learned counsel representing the appellant submits that
admittedly shop No.20 was leased out to the appellant and he was never
evicted in accordance with law. He submits that the Municipal Committee
had no right to dispossess the plaintiff.
7. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the parties.
8. The plaintiff is claiming to be lessee of the property as he took
the shop on rent. However, subsequently, the shop was required for
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059755
RSA-2458-1994 2024:PHHC:059755
establishing octroi post. Thereafter, Municipal Committee constructed the
octroi post and started working from the same building. The plaintiff was
offered alternative shop to which he accepted. Now, he cannot take a U-turn
and claim possession of shop No.20.
9. Moreover, the plaintiff filed the suit for shop no.20 in the year
1988 after having accepted alternative allotment in the year 1986.
10. In the meantime, he permitted the Municipal Committee to
complete construction octroi post and use it for public purpose.
11. Hence, no ground to interfere is made out.
12. Dismissed accordingly.
13. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
May 01st, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
