AYUNA RANA Vs. SUBHADRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.1.1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu.

(2.) THE facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are that the plaintiff-respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') instituted a suit against respondent-defendant Municipal Committee, Kullu (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee') and the defendant-appellant Smt. Champa Devi who is since dead and whose legal representatives have been brought on record as appellants for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from causing any sort of unlawful interference with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over one storyed building bearing House No. AKH-32 having one shop, one store and way to the room, one room, one kitchen and a verandah specifically detailed in the plan attached with the plaint, situate at Akhara Bazar, Kullu, Phati Dhalpur, Kothi Maharaja, Tehsil and District Kullu (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) and from dispossessing the plaintiff therefrom in any illegal manner and from demolishing the suit property on the basis of illegal and void notices and otherwise.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the defendants and they submitted separate written statements. The defendant Committee, in its written statement, admitted that as per its record, one Janak Raj is recorded in occupation of the shop and that husband of Champa Devi was working in the revenue department and rest of the allegations regarding connivance and influence etc. as made in the plaint have been denied. It has been claimed that the Committee had received complaints from defendant Champa Devi and some other persons of the locality that the building in question is in dilapidated condition and likely to collapse at any time and thereby cause harm to the property of the adjoining owners and passers by. On receipt of such complaints, the Committee made spot inquiry and deputed its engineer for holding spot inquiry. On receipt of the report from the engineer so deputed, the Committee served notice on the deceased defendant Champa Devi to repair the premises within one month and when she failed to do so and informed the defendant Committee that she was not in a position to effect repairs, the municipal J.E. and Engineer visited the spot and reported that building is likely to collapse, therefore, it was adjudged dangerous and in view of the public safety, the Committee served deceased defendant Champa Devi and the tenants with a notice requiring them to vacate the building within 14 days and to report compliance to the office accordingly. The tenants refused to accept the service, therefore, the same was affixed on the premises. However, there was no compliance of the notice, therefore, another notice dated 2.1.1990 requiring them to demolish the building within six hours was issued. It is further claimed that the notices were issued according to law and procedure and sufficient time was given to the owner and the tenant to comply, which they failed to do. Therefore, the decision of the Committee to remove the nuisance is legal and valid, according to the H.P. Municipal Laws and Rules and, thus, the claim of the plaintiff has been denied.