(1.) This first appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25/7/2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 3-A/2000 by which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant for declaration of title and permanent injunction has been dismissed.
(2.) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction on the ground that one plot ad- measuring 20/26 square feet is situated within the limits of Municipal Council, Karera, District Shivpuri (it shall be referred to as "disputed land") and the said plot was leased out to the plaintiff by the Municipal Council, Karera, District Shivpuri at monthly rent of Rs.30/-. The plot was leased out to the plaintiff prior to the year 1985 and the plaintiff is regularly making payment of rent to the Municipal Council, Karera from the year 1985.
(3.) It is submitted that by raising a temporary construction, the plaintiff is carrying on his business even prior to 1985. The plaintiff has also taken electricity connection and is carrying on the business of welding. The Municipal Council, Karera, District Shivpuri issued a notice dated 5/3/1989 under Sections 323, 187 of Municipalities Act requiring the plaintiff to vacate the premises, but when it was informed by the plaintiff that he is in possession of the said plot in the capacity of a tenant, then no action was taken by the Municipal Council, Karera and the rent was enhanced from Rs.30/- to Rs.60/- per month and, thereafter, the plaintiff is regularly making payment of monthly rent of Rs.60/-. Thereafter, the Tehsildar, Karera issued a notice to the plaintiff for his eviction, against which the plaintiff filed a civil suit for permanent injunction which was decreed and it was directed that the plaintiff shall not be dispossessed without following due procedure of law. In that civil suit, the CMO of Municipal Council, Karera, District Shipvuri had appeared as a witness in the capacity of OIC of the State Government and had deposed that the plaintiff is the tenant of the Municipal Council. Thereafter, on 19/11/2011, the defendants issued a notice to the plaintiff requiring him to vacate the premises treating the plaintiff as an encroacher. When the plaintiff filed a reply on 10/12/2014, then another notice was given to the plaintiff to vacate the premises within a period of 3 days, therefore, the plaintiff has a suspicion that without following the due procedure of law, the defendants may evict/dispossess him from the plot in question and, thus, the present suit has been filed for permanent injunction.