MANOJ Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24. 12. 2004 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Mandsaur in Civil Suit No. 19- A/2003, whereby the suit filed by the appellant for realization of a sum of Rs. 75,000/- was dismissed, present appeal has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that on 18. 8. 2003 appellant filed a suit against the respondent alleging that respondent Municipal Council, Mandsaur is owner of a shop situated at Samrat Market, behind Kalkamata Temple. It was alleged that respondent auctioned the shop. It was alleged that appellant also participated in the said auction which took place on 18. 8. 2000. It was alleged that appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as security and the highest bid of the appellant was for Rs. 3,35,000/-, which was accepted by the respondent. It was also alleged that on 19. 8. 2000 appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards premium. It was alleged that balance amount was required to be deposited within a period of 30 days. It was alleged that because of financial crises appellant could not manage the amount, hence appellant moved an application before respondent and prayed for refund of the amount showing the inability in depositing the remaining amount. Further case of the appellant was that instead of refunding the amount respondent forfeited the amount deposited by the appellant. It was alleged that the action of , the respondent is illegal and deserves to be set aside. It was alleged that under sub Rule IV of Rule 6 of M. P. Municipality (Transfer of Immovable Property)Rules 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) in case of failure on the part of the appellant the respondent was entitle to forfeit the security amount only and not of the amount deposed by the appellant towards premium. It was prayed that it be declared that the action of the respondent in forfeiting the amount of premium deposited by the appellant is illegal and decree, be passed against the respondent for refund of the amount along with interest.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the respondent by filing the written statement wherein, it was not disputed that the respondent is the owner of the said market. It was also not disputed that the appellant participated in public auction for taking shop on lease and deposited an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as security. It was alleged that the auction was commenced on 18. 8. 2000 and the highest bid was of the appellant for a sum of rs. 3,35,000/ -. It was alleged that as per the terms and conditions of the auction, which were well known to the appellant, 1/4th amount of the auction money was required to be deposited immediately after the auction and balance amount was to be deposited within a period of 30 days. It was alleged that inspite of lapse of time and also inspite of giving repeated reminders appellant failed to deposit the balance amount, hence the amount deposited by the appellant was forfeited, as per terms and conditions of the auction. It was prayed that the suit filed by the appellant be dismissed.