HARI KISHORE Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for permanent injunction(reference to him hereinafter shall be made as ,,the plaintiff). He was allotted one shed no. 8, B-45, Jhilmil (Tahirpur), Shadara, Delhi on lease by the respondents under a scheme meant for denotified Tribes vide allotment letter dated 09.09.1988. THEreafter the plaintiff started his business of auto parts in that shed in the name and style of Sangam Auto Industries. In February, 1991 he was informed by the respondents that he had encroached upon government land outside his shed and had also raised a boundary wall there. He was called upon to demolish the boundary wall by 22.02.1991 but he did not do that. He was however given another chance by the respondents vide notice dated 15.04.1991 to remove the encroachment over the government land positively by 02.05.1991 failing which eviction proceedings were to be initiated against him. THE plaintiffs stand was that he had not encroached any land outside his shed but it was done by one Mrs. Gita (who as per the case of the defendants was his sister only). It was his further case that on 31.10.1992 he was told by one peon of the concerned department that the lease in respect of his shed had been cancelled and its possession shall be taken back from him. However, no order of cancellation of the lease was given to him. Since the plaintiff was apprehending his dispossession from the shed he filed a suit for permanent injunction on 02.11.1992(being suit no. 422/1992) against the respondents-defendants to protect his possession.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the respondents-defendants primarily on the ground that since the lease in respect of the shed in dispute had been cancelled on 18th September, 1992 before the filing of the suit which was for injunction the suit had already become infructuous. It was also pleaded that the order of cancellation of lease was served on the plaintiff.

(3.) THE plaintiff filed an appeal (being R.C.A. No.310 of 2000) in the Court of Senior Civil Judge but that appeal was also dismissed vide judgment dated 18/03/2004.