MOHAMMAD DEEN Vs. NAGAR MAHAPALIKA, VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for injunction restraining the Nagar Mahapalika from forcibly evicting the appellant from the disputed shop. The facts are these:- Shop no. 76 in the premises no. C. K. 59/38 had been let out to Haji Abdul Rahman, grand father of the plaintiff. The rest while Improvement Trust Varanasi which has now merged in the Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi made an improvement scheme known as Nichi Bagh Bikri Kendra'. Subsequently, the Improvement Trust to proceedings for acquisition of a number of properties including the shop which had been let out to Abdul Rahman. Apprehending danger to the eviction, seven persons filed suit no, 5 of 1954 Ram Narain Vs. The Land Acquisition Officer injunction restraining the defendant from dispossession the plaintiff case of the plaintiffs of the said shop was the predecessor-in interest of the plaintiff as well, had filed suit against the defendants and if that suit. after litigation, a compromise was arrived at on 11-4-55. One of the terms agreed to between the parties was that the Nagar Mahapalika would give seven shops to the plaintiffs in the scheme of Nichi Bagh Shoping centre. The plaint if alleged that after construction of the new shops, the defendant offered to the plaintiff one of the newly constructed shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 78 and also demanded six months advance. The plaintiff claimed that although he had agreed to accept the offer but later op the defendant illegally resled. The plaintiff was, .thereafter offered another shop no. 27, to which also the plaintiff agreed, but as the defendant again resiled, the said shop could not be occupied. The plaintiff claimed that although the defendant had not performed its own part of the contract but wanted forcibly to eject the plaintiff on the false pretext that the plaintiff had not accepted the offer, the plaintiff had to bring the suit for injunction.

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendant and the allegations made in the plaint were denied as false. The defendant contended that as per the terms of the compromise the plaintiff was offered a shop but he did not accept the same. As a result, he lost his right to get a new shop The plaintiff claimed that the first offer was in respect of the shop no. 76 but as that was not accepted, another offer for shop no. 27 was made. The plaintiff did not take the said shop and filed the present suit with false allegations.

(3.) The trial court dismissed the suit on the finding that the defendant had made the offer of the shop as agreed to but the plaintiff himself did not accept it. The plaintiff went up in appeal. The lower appellate court maintained the decree of the trial court and dismissed the same. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the second appeal.