JAT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL Vs. CAP. HAWA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiff Col. Hawa Singh had filed a suit for mandatory injunction against defendant i.e. Jat Senior Secondary School, Jat College Road, near double Phatak (Railway Crossing), Hisar through its Principal, seeking issuance of direction to the defendant to get a shop constructed on its open land/plot measuring 70 sq. yards situated at Jat College Road, near double Phatak, Hisar fully detailed in the plaint and/or to allow the plaintiff to get constructed the shop at his expenses to be recovered from the defendant or to adjust the same in the rent, besides craving for grant of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from raising any construction on the said open area except the shop to be given to the plaintiff.

(2.) As per version of the plaintiff, he is having LPG Gas Agency of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation since the year 1982 at Hisar, which he is running under the name and style of M/s Sai Gas Service being its sole proprietor. The plaintiff is a senior citizen. He is sick and is totally confined to bed and for that reason, he has appointed his son Vikram Singh as his special attorney and his such attorney is well conversant with the facts of the case; the plaintiff had taken three shops having Nos. 26, 27 and 29 built on the area of 70 sq. yards on rent from the defendant about 28 years before filing of the suit. The plaintiff had been paying rent of those shops to the defendant regularly. The defendant wanted to get the shop vacated from the plaintiff, which it could not do legally, as such, it got a notice issued to the plaintiff from Municipal Committee, Hisar (for short 'MC, Hisar') and the letter threatened to demolish the shops. The plaintiff challenged the notice in Civil Court, Hisar, where a stay order was granted in favour of the plaintiff. During the trial, evidence of the plaintiff was completed and case was fixed for evidence of the defendants. The defendant could not lead any evidence and realizing that the suit was likely to be decreed, had offered and requested the plaintiff to compromise the matter. The plaintiff being a peaceful citizen and to avoid the litigation agreed to the proposal. Ultimately, a compromise was arrived at between the parties under which the defendant agreed to get a new shop constructed in place of old shops having size not less than 35 sq. yards. The compromise was reduced into writing as Ex.C1. In the said civil suit, statements of parties were recorded and suit was disposed of. The plaintiff had complied with terms and conditions of the compromise and vacated the shops, handing over the possession to the defendant. The defendant demolished the shops and on the first floor of the three shops, Union Bank of India was tenant. The defendant got constructed a new building for the bank near the shops in question. The bank is now housed in newly constructed building as tenant under the defendant. However, the defendant did not get construct a shop for the plaintiff as compromised, despite repeated requests and demands and service of legal notice dated 11.12.2009 by the plaintiff upon the defendant. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff brought the suit in the Court.

(3.) On being put to notice, defendant No.1 appeared and filed written statement, contesting the suit, raising preliminary objections that the plaintiff did not have locus standi to file the suit; that no cause of action arose to the plaintiff to bring the suit; the suit was not maintainable etc. On merits, such defendant contended that Vikram Singh was not duly authorized and competent to file the suit and further shops in question were rented out to the plaintiff by Management of Jat Educational Institution. However, the plaintiff was not paying the rent regularly. The shops were in dilapidated condition and developed cracks in the walls and roofs and might have collapsed at any time. MC, Hisar after inspecting the shops, issued notices to the plaintiff on its own and not at the asking of defendant. The matter had been compromised and statements of defendant was got recorded, in which the defendant had stated that the shops shall be given to the plaintiff as and when those were constructed on the land in question; that the building in which Union Bank of India was shifted was already constructed by the Management of Jat Educational Institution. The bank was running on the first floor of shop Nos.28 and 29 but the building was in dilapidated condition, so the bank had vacated that premises; that the construction can only be carried out by the Management because the defendant-school has no authority to raise construction over the land. The answering defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.