HORI LAL Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has lost concurrently before the two Courts below. He filed a suit for declaration making prayer for permanent injunction also, claiming that the defendant Municipal Council be directed to indemnify the plaintiff on account of loss caused to him by demolition of the canteen which had been taken by the plaintiff on rent. The plaintiff further prayed for restoration of the tenancy over the canteen in question.

(2.) Both the Courts below have rejected the plea of the plaintiff. It has been held that his tenancy had been terminated vide Ex.D.4 and thereafter the plaintiff had no right to claim any rights in the suit property. The suit fled by the R.S.A. No. 1733 of 2005 plaintiff was dismissed and his appeal failed before the learned first Appellate Court. Besides the findings on merits recorded by the two Courts below, it is apparent that the suit filed by the plaintiff making the aforesaid prayers was not even legally maintainable, since the plaintiff was in fact making a prayer for possession and recovery of damages. No such suit had been filed by him making the said prayers in accordance with law.

(3.) Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal. Dismissed.