SRI MUNNA Vs. NAGAR NIGAM MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.09.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge/ Special Judge (E.C. Act), Meerut in Misc. Appeal No. 147 of 2016 by which the appeal preferred by Nagar Nigam, Meerut (defendant-respondent) against order passed by the trial court dated 31.03.2016 was allowed and the interim injunction application 6C filed in Original Suit No. 97 of 2015 was rejected.

(2.) The petitioners had instituted Original Suit No. 97 of 2015 against the defendant-respondent for permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendant-respondent from evicting the petitioners from the suit property without following due procedure established by law. The property in dispute were five shops, admeasuring 15' x 10' each, situated in front of Mathura Palace, Begum Pul, Kutchery Road, Abu Nala, Meerut City.

(3.) The petitioners' case, in nutshell, was that an area admeasuring 100 square yard situated in front of Mathura Palace, Begum Pul, Kutchery Road, Abu Nala, Meerut City was let out by defendant-respondent to Smt. Babita Walia over which five disputed tin shed shops stand. It is their case that Smt. Babita Walia had instituted a Suit No. 772 of 1998 seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against Nagar Nigam, Meerut by claiming tenancy right over the disputed shops. It was claimed that the said suit was decreed on 20.10.2000 whereby the Nagar Nigam, Meerut was restrained from dispossessing Smt. Babita Walia except by procedure established by law. It was claimed that in the month of Oct., 2008, Smt. Babita Walia had vacated the premises; thereafter, the defendant-respondent had given the premises on rent to the petitioners; and the petitioners continue to be tenant thereof at the rate of Rs. 400.00 per month with effect from 01.04.2009. It was claimed that though the petitioners had been paying rent in lieu of their tenancy but the defendant - Nagar Nigam had not been issuing rent receipt. It was claimed that on 05.12.2013, the defendant had separately served notice to each of the petitioners to remove encroachment otherwise the same would be removed forcibly. Thereafter a Case No. 1 of 2014 under the provisions of U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act (hereinafter referred to as PP Act) was filed in which the petitioners were also parties. It was stated that in the proceeding drawn under the PP Act, the petitioners were recognised as sub-tenants of Babita Walia and were stated to be in possession. It was claimed that as they were admittedly in settled possession, they could not be evicted except by following procedure established by law.