MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, AMBALA CITY Vs. LAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of two cross-appeals, Regular Second Appeal No. 742 of 1959 Municipal Committee, Ambala City v. Lal Chand and Regular Second Appeal No. 1207 of 1959, Lal Chand v. Municipal Committee, Ambala City as they are directed against the same decree.

(2.) The plaintiff Municipal Committee filed a suit against Lal Chand defendant for recovery of Rs. 450/- as arrears of rent from October 1, 1955, to October 31, 1957, at the rate of Rs. 18/- per mensem, in respect of stall No. 108 situate in the Grain Market, Ambala City, and for the ejectment of the defendant from the said stall. The plaintiff alleged that the site in dispute was nazul property under its management. The site was auctioned in the name of Charan Das on March 27, 1948, for the period from April 1, 1948 to March 31, 1949, for Rs. 740/-. On the application of the defendant dated December 21, 1948 to the effect that he had purchased the rights of Charan Dass by paying to him Rs. 190/- and should be substituted as lessee in place of Charan Das, the Municipal Committee entered the name of Lal Chand defendant in place of Charan Das. Subsequently, the defendant made an application for reduction of rent, which was reduced to Rs. 18/- per mensem and the defendant continued to pay the same for some time, but then defaulted in the payment of the rent. The Municipal Committee filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 879/- on account of rent upto September 30, 1955, which was dismissed by the trial Court but was decreed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala, on February 13, 1957. When the present suit was filed by the Municipal Committee, the appeal against the decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala, was pending in this court (Regular Second Appeal No. 487 of 1957). That appeal was dismissed by D.K. Mahajan, J. on July 17, 1964.

(3.) The defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit on various grounds inter alia that the contract of lease and not made in accordance with Section 6 of the Punjab Municipal (Executive Officer) Act, 1931, and hence the contract of lease was void and no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. It was further alleged that the site in dispute was nazul land and the Municipal Committee could not lease it out to the defendant without obtaining the sanction of the Deputy Commissioner or Commissioner, Ambala, which had not been obtained. Reference was also made to the earlier suit for the recovery of rent and it was mentioned that the appeal against the decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala, was pending in this Court. It was also alleged that the defendant had entered into possession of the site of his own accord, that the plaintiff Municipal Committee has passed a resolution reducing the rent of all the stall-holders to one-half and that the rent of the site in dispute could not be more than Rs. 4/- per mensem. It was also pleaded that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the property had been transferred by the Punjab Government in favour of Muslims who had migrated to Pakistan and the property had vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property and thereafter in the Central Government. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :-