JHAMMAN DAS Vs. NAGAR MAHAPALIKA, KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A notice was issued by the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, to the plaintiff-appellant on June 14, 1966 calling upon him to show cause by June 17, 1966, why the constructions made by him should not be demolished. The plaintiff did not submit any reply to the said notice whereupon the Nagar Mahapalika issued a notice Jo him under Sec. 327 ( 2) of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, hereinafter referred to as "the Adhiyam' ordering the demolition of the constructions made by the plaintiff. Since the demolition could not be carried by the date fixed in that notice, another notice was issued to the plaintiff under Sec. 327 (2) of the Adhiniyam. On receipt of the notice, the plaintiff filed the suit giving rise to this second appeal. In the suit be claimed the relief of permanent injunction directing the Nagar Mahapalika, its officers and servants and agents to refrain from demolishing the plaintiff's constructions. The suit was dismissed by the trial court by its judgment and decree dated Oct. 31, 1972. The plaintiff thereupon preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the first Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Kanpur by its judgment and decree dated March 4, 1974. Aggrieved the plaintiff has now preferred this second appeal. It will be pertinent to mention that the plaintiff had obtained an ad-interim injunction in support of the plea claimed by him at every stage of these proceedings. In consequence, the constructions made by the plaintiff still stand and the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, has not been able to execute its order passed under Sec. 327 (2) of the Adhiniyam.

(2.) Plaintiff's case, in short, was that he was the tenant of a shop on the ground-floor of house No. 15/271 in the Civil Lines in the City of Kanpur on a monthly rent of Rs. 25. He stated that the accommodation in his tenancy including the constructions which were claimed by the Nagar Mahapalika to be unauthorised existed in the same shape and form for 40 years before the institution of the suit. He claimed that the officers of the Nagar Mahapalika were in league with his landlady who was keen to evict the plaintiff and they have got the notice issued in collusion with the landlady. Plaintiff stated in an equivocal terms that he had not made any constructions as alleged in the notices issued by the Nagar Mahapalika under Sec. 327 of the Adhiniyam and that the said notices were wholly without jurisdiction The notice was also characterised by him as illegal, invalid, arbitrary and wrong.

(3.) The Nagar Mahapalika contested the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff had constructed a pucca wall, a wooden stall and Bhattis. They also stated that the plaintiff had raised pellers and made a Chabutra on the Nazul land. In their written statement, it was further disclosed that the said constructions had been made without the approval of the appropriate authorities of the Nagar Mahapalika. In the written statement, the notices issued to the plaintiff were stoutly defended and it was stated that the notices were valid and in accordance with law. It was further disclosed that there did not exist any collusion between the landlady on the one hand and the officers and servants of the Nagar Mahapalika on the other. Certain other pleas were also raised by the Nagar Mahapalika to which it is not necessary to refer in this judgment.