NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD Vs. IRSHAD ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Present defendant's second appeal is directed against judg ment and decree passed by VI Additional District Judge, Sultanpur dated 26-3-1996 allowing Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1994, and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respon dent, No. 452 of 1989, for mandatory in junction to deliver possession of the shop in dispute to the plaintiff/respondent within 2 months.

(2.) FACTS of the ease, in brief, arc that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for per manent injunction restraining the defen dants/appellants from interfering in his possession over the shop No. 4 situated at Kurwar Road near Tehsil compound, Sultanpur, for short hereinafter referred to as "the shop in dispute", pleading that the plaintiff had a wooden Gumti at the aforesaid road and place from which he used to earn his livelihood by carrying on tailoring work. The defendant/appellant No. 1, used to charge Rs. 15. 50 per annum as Tah-Baxari through Thekedar from the plaintiff/respondent for use and occupa tion of the aforesaid Gumti. Nagar Palika Sultanpur resolved to remove wooden Gumtis placed by the side of the aforesaid road and to construct pucca shops to aug ment its income and to prevent encroach ment on the road. It was also resolved that after construction of shops they shall be allotted to the Gumti-owners. A list of Gumti-owners was also prepared in which name of the plaintiff/respondent was also entered. In pursuance of the aforesaid resolution shops were constructed and were allotted to Gumti-owners who were financially well-up. Some outsiders were also inducted in the said shops; but not to the plaintiff/respondent who was a poor man. He, therefore, applied to the Ad ministrator for allotment of a shop. The Administrator directed the Executive Of ficer of the Nagar Palika to allot one ol the shops to the plaintiff but none was al lotted. The Administrator, therefore, oral ly permitted the plaintiff/respondent to occupy the shop No. 4. On the basis of oral permission granted by the Administrator, the plaintiff/respondent occupied shop No. 4 and started his tailoring work in the same. It was on 22-5-1989, the plaintiff was threatened to be evicted from the shop in dispute by Nagar Palika through its Thekedar, hence the plaintiff/respondent had to approach the Court and file the suit for above mentioned relief. The plain tiff/respondent also applied for grant of ad interim injunction.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 2 on the other hand pleaded that plaintiff/respondent had no Gumti at the place where shop in dispute was situated. Other facts pleaded by plain tiff/respondent were admitted but it was asserted that the shop in dispute was never allotted to him. Other technical and legal pleas were also taken. It was pleaded that the shop in dispute was allotted to defen dant No. 2 on 3-10-1988 on the basis of which he took possession of the said shop and was carrying on his business in the same.