PANCHAN BHAI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2013 passed by 4 th Additional District Judge, Chhindwara in Civil Appeal No. 70-A/2013, by which learned A.D.J. affirmed the judgment and decree dated 06/12/2005 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Saunsar,District-Chhindwara, in Civil Suit No.351- A/1989, whereby learned Civil Judge rejected the applicant's civil suit for declaration and injunction that the appellant is entitled to run Saw Mill situated at Civil Lines, Ward No. 2. Sausar, District Chhindwara as a lessee of Madanlal & Narendra (Defendant No. 7 & 8 of the suit) and respondent/defendant No. 1 to 3 be directed by way of mandatory injunction to renew appellant's licence for running Saw-Mill every year and also directed the respondent no. 4 to 6 to continue the electricity supply for running the said Saw-Mill and respondents be restrained from interfering in the business of appellant of running Saw-Mill from the premises where the said Saw mill is situated.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant/plaintiff filed a civil suit before Civil Judge Class-I, Sausar averring that on 24/10/1970 he took 'Saw mill' situated at Civil Lines, Ward No.2, Sausar, District Chhindwara and adjoining land (further called as suit saw mill and suit land) from Madanlal & Narendra of the suit (who died during pendency of first appeal and Madanlal succeeded by his legal Representative No.(7-A to I) but name of the Legal Representative of Narendra did not incorporate by the appellant in first appeal) on rent for a sum of Rs.200/- per month and on 15/10/70 Madanlal also executed rent note in favour of appellant. In the mill, an electric meter was fitted in the name of Narendra by which respondent No. 4 to 6 was supplied electricity to run the mill. At the time of taking mill on rent, it was decided that he would run the mill from the said meter and will pay the electricity bill. On 01/10/73 Madanlal & Narendra enhanced the rent from Rs.200 to Rs.260. Appellant/plaintiff regularly paid the said rent to Madan Lal and Narendra. In year 1985- 86, Madan Lal,Narendra and respondents no.1 to 6 colluded with each other for the purpose of evicting the appellant from the suit premises. Madanlal & Narendra raised objection before the Forest Authorities and also before the officers of the M.P. Electricity Board, and on their objection the electricity supply was ordered to be discontinued by the officials of the M.P. Electricity Board and further the forest authorities refused to renew the licence of running saw mill for the suit premises which was taken on lease by the present appellant. So, it be declared that appellant/plaintiff is entitled to run saw mill business on the suit premises and also entitled to take electric connection and further the respondents be directed to issue licence for running saw mill in favour of the plaintiff. They also be prevented from discontinuing the electric connection and also be directed to renew the licence of saw mill of plaintiff from time to time.

(3.) Defendants No.1 to 3 in their reply opposed the prayer and submitted that Appellant is not entitled to run saw mill from the suit premises.