SHILLONG MUNICIPAL BOARD Vs. UPSTAR LYNGDOH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of both the parties, these revision petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment at the admission stage.

(2.) THE Revision Petition No. 16 (SH) 2006 is directed against the order dated 01. 08. 2006 passed by the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Shillong in Civil Misc. Application No. 29 (T) 2006 arising out of Revision Petition No. 1 (T) 2006. While the Revision Petition No. 17 (SH) 2006 is directed against the order dated 29. 06. 2006 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 4 (T) 2006 arising out of FAO No. 2006, as the facts involved in the revision petitions are inter connected, for the sake of convenience, it will suffice if the facts of Civil Revision Petition 16 (SH) 2006 are noticed at the outset.

(3.) THE Shillong Municipal Board, which is the petitioner, by the notice dated 12. 08. 2003 had invited tenders from interested parties to submit their bids for the lease of the Laitkor Toll gate for the period commencing from 18. 03. 2002 to 03. 03. 2004. The respondent, who is the petitioner in CR (P) No. 17 (SH) 2006, being the highest bidder, was selected by the petitioner for settlement of the toll gate, but due to the disruption in its operation, it was only on 28. 10. 2005 that an agreement was executed between the parties for collection of tolls for a period of 9 months with effect from 1. 11. 2005 to 31. 07. 2006 and that following this, the work order dated 03. 11. 2005 was issued in favour of the respondent. The agreement dated 28. 10. 2005 and the letter dated 03. 11. 2005 are annexed to the revision petition, which are marked as Annexure 1 and 2 respectively. When the respondent defaulted in making payment of the rent amounting to Rs. 7,33,400/- (Rupees Seven lacs Thirty Three thousand Four handed) only and also expressed his inability to run the Toll gate unless the contractual amount was reduced, the petitioner vide letter dated 01. 06. 2006 terminated the contract and directed the respondent to stop the collection of the tolls with immediate effect and also directed him to deposit the said rent arrears due on or before 07. 06. 2006. This prompted the respondent to file Title Suit 23 (T) 2006 before the learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong for a declaration that the letter dated 01. 06. 2006 is null and void and for specific performance of the said agreement dated 28. 10. 2005. The respondent also simultaneously filed an application for interim injunction, which was registered as Misc. case No. 63 (T)2006. A copy of the plaint and the application for injunction are also annexed to the revision petition and marked as Annexure 4 and 5 respectively. On receipt of notice/summons from the learned Trial Court, the petitioner filed its written statement as well as written objection showing cause against the prayer for interim injunction on 16. 06. 2006 whereupon the Trial Court fixed 20. 062006 as the date for hearing of the interim injunction. It appears that when the interim petition came up for hearing on 20. 06. 2006, the petitioner sought adjournment on the ground that its counsel was indisposed. The trial court rejected the prayer for adjournment and granted ad-interim injunction restraining the petitioner from giving effect to the said letter dated 01. 06. 2006 or from interfering in any manner with the running of the toll gate by the respondent at Laitkor. The Trial Court also on the same date made the interim injunction absolute.