MANGAT RAM Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Second Appeal preferred by the plaintiff/appellant (here-in-after referred to as 'the plaintiff') against the judgment and decree dated 28.5.1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Chamba, in Civil Appeal No. 24/97 whereby the judgment of the learned trial Judge passed in Civil Suit No. 71/93 dated 18.4.1997 has been reversed to the extent that the relief of demolition of the Rest House by the respondent/defendant (here-in-after referred to as 'the defendant') as granted by the trial Judge has been reversed.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration, permanent prohibitory injunction, mandatory injunction and possession in the court of the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Dalhousie. Case of the plaintiff as made out in the plaint is that he is lessee of the shop/house measuring 00-00-15 Hects, situated in Khasra No. 1622/1, Khata Khatauni No. 96 min 200/201 situated in Mohal Moti Tibba Tehsil Bhattyat, since 1976 on payment of rent to the defendant. The said shop/house as it stood originally was destroyed in a fire on 21.5.93. Thereafter the defendant granted permission to the plaintiff to re-construct the said shop/house as it originally existed. Without any financial help from the defendant, the plaintiff re-constructed the said shop/house after spending money thereon which he raised by taking loan from the bank and disposal of the jewellery of his wife. The building constructed by him has slab at the top whereas earlier the shop/house was roofed with tin-sheets. The defendant- intended to construct a Rest House over the said shop for which the shop constructed by him was threatened to be demolished. With a view to pressurise the plaintiff to concede the demand of the defendant to construct the said Rent House, when on 4.8.1993 the defendant tried to demolish the shop/house in question the plaintiff telegraphically requested the defendant not to raise any construction over his shop on the ground that the defendant had no legal right either to demolish the shop or to raise any sort of construction thereon. It appears that the telegram issued by the plaintiff to the defendant did not yield the desired result, hence the Suit was filed claiming the following reliefs:

(3.) PLAINTIFF filed replication wherein the grounds of defence taken in the written statement were denied and the claim as made out in the plaint was re-affirmed.