ANIL KUMAR Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, MOHINDERGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiffs Anil Kumar son of Shri Radhay Shayam and another Anil Kumar son of Shri Kishori Lal, both residents of Mohindergarh had filed a suit against defendant Municipal Committee, Mohindergarh craving for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of plaintiff No. 1 over shop No. 45 and of plaintiff No. 2 over shop No. 46 as allottee and for re-allotting those shops.

(2.) As per the version of the plaintiffs, they had been running their business in kiosk under the tenancy of the defendant; that later on the defendant - Municipal Committee decided to construct new shopping complex and it was decided that the old tenants would be given pucca shops in the shopping complex, subject to their making payment of Rs.40,000.00; that the plaintiffs had made such payment, resultantly shops No. 45 and 46 were allotted to them and actual possession was delivered to them long back in the year 1997; that the plaintiffs have been in possession of such shops continuously and all the formalities regarding allotment were duly fulfilled by the concerned officials; that later on the defendant threatened to oust the plaintiffs from the shops and re-allot those to some other persons, giving rise to a cause of action to the plaintiffs to bring the suit.

(3.) On notice the defendant appeared through counsel and filed written statement contesting the suit INTER ALIA raising preliminary objections challenging the maintainability of the suit; locus standi of the plaintiffs to file the suit alleging that the same was time barred and no cause of action had arisen to the plaintiffs to bring the same etc. On merits, the defendant denied that the plaintiffs ever remained its tenants in shops No. 45 and 46. The defendant further denied that at the time of construction of shopping complex, it was resolved to allot shops to the old tenants. According to the answering defendant, it neither allotted any shops No. 45 and 46 in favour of the plaintiffs nor received any alleged amount According to it the then President, Secretary, Junior engineer and Rent Clerk connived with the plaintiffs and got allotted shops No. 45 and 46 to them in the year 1997 regarding which no resolution was passed; that when complaint was filed by the public and inquiry was conducted and subsequently vide letter No. 429/LFA dtd. 13/7/1998, the then Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul cancelled the allotment and directed holding of inquiry in the matter. The defendant claimed to be in possession of Shops No. 45 and 46. In the end, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.