MOHMDKHAN RUSTOMKHAN Vs. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition against the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and two others for various reliefs. From the contents of the petition, it appears that his grievance was that he was a tenant of a cabin. For the purpose of widening the road, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation was likely to take action for removal of the Pan Shop, i.e. cabin. Learned Single Judge admitted the petition and granted ex-parte interim relief by which the respondents were restrained from evicting and dispossessing the petitioner from the suit premises in any manner whatsoever.

(2.) When the matter was called out yesterday, learned advocate for the petitioner did not remain present and the matter was adjourned to today. Today when the matter was called out in the first session, learned advocate for the petitioner did not remain present. Even in the second session, he has not chosen to remain present and therefore, we have heard the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation, appearing in the matter.

(3.) In the petition, the petitioner has averred that on 1.1.1977 he was granted lease of the suit premises (cabin) at a monthly rent of Rs. 100.00 exclusive of all taxes and other charges whichever may be leviable in future by the respondent no.2. The petitioner came out with a version that he had not raised any dispute in any forum for payment of rent to the landlord. However, he has averred that he was making payment regularly right from 1.1.77 to 30.9.88. He has further averred that the middle of the S.V.College Road, there is a "Salapas Road" which is of 28 feet excluding 7 feet of the ownership of Sarvodaya Commercial Centre i.e. the respondent no. 3 on the part of which the Pan Shop, i.e. cabin of the petitioner was placed. The petitioner further averred in para 5 that "the strip of 7 feet land on which the suit premises is situated is completely on the remote side and in a corner. It is in existence since 1977 and is still not acquired and taken possession over by the respondent no.1 for the purpose of road widening in pursuance of the implementation of the Town Planning Scheme in the walled city of Ahmedabad. The very strip of land is also not paved by concrete or otherwise by the respondent no. 1 or any other agency". The petitioner averred that with a view to maintain his business of a Pan Shop, the petitioner had to keep and maintain the cabin of the Pan Shop in a latest condition by means of renovation and modifications, so as to attract public at large. Thus, it is very clear that it was not a constructed premises but it was a pan cabin. Not only that, but he has placed photographs on the record and from that it is very clear that it is merely a wooden cabin which is just adjacent to the wall of a building. Therefore, it cannot be a part and parcel of the building itself. The petitioner along with the petition has not placed any other material to substantiate his case that he was paying the rent.