Second Appeal arose from a decree restraining a Municipal Corporation from auctioning a shop held by a perpetual lessee. The Court dismissed the appeal, noting the corporation failed to prove the lease was cancelled, despite evidence of tax assessments and payments by the lessee.
The appeal was dismissed as being without any merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
Regular Second Appeal No. 3534 of 2010 (O&M).
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
...
Date of Decision: March 11, 2011.
Regular Second Appeal No. 3534 of 2010 (O&M).
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad
... Appellant
VERSUS
Didar Singh
... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL.
Present: Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant.
-.-
MOHINDER PAL, J.
Civil Misc. No.10374-C of 2010.
For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 362 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
Civil Misc. No.10373-C of 2010.
For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of
-2-
Regular Second Appeal No. 3534 of 2010 (O&M).
295 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
Civil Misc. No.10372-C of 2010.
Allowed as prayed for as deficiency in the Court fee has been made good and objection raised by the Registry in regard thereto has been removed.
Regular Second Appeal No.3534 of 2010.
Defendant-appellant Municipal Corporation, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation') is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffrespondent was decreed to the effect that the Corporation was restrained/prohibited perpetually from auctioning/selling the shop bearing No.184 situated in Tikona Park Market, N.I.T, Faridabad, fully described in para No.1 of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the shop in dispute') forcibly and illegally and by adopting any coercive measure whatsoever.
After hearing the learned counsel for the Corporation and perusing the impugned judgments I do not find any ground which may warrant interference in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the Corporation that such findings are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration.
The plaintiff-respondent was a perpetual lessee in actual physical possession of the shop in dispute after he had paid the requisite amount / sale consideration in respect thereof.
-3-
Regular Second Appeal No. 3534 of 2010 (O&M).
However, the Corporation, on the assumption that the lease deed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent in respect of the shop in dispute had been cancelled in the year 1977 issued advertisement in the daily Newspaper `Punjab Kesari' on 2.3.1994 regarding auction of the shop in dispute, which led to the filing of the instant suit by the plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction.
No material was placed on record by the Corporation to show that the allotment of the shop in dispute in favour of the plaintiff-appellant had been cancelled in the year 1977, which was to the knowledge of the plaintiff-respondent. On the other hand, the plaintiff had examined Anand Kumar (P.W.2), an employee of the Corporation working in House Tax Department. Anand Kumar (P.W.2) deposed from the official record and proved that the Corporation had been assessing house tax liability of the plaintiff in respect of the shop in dispute for the years 1976-77, 1984-85, 1989-90 and 1994-95. He further proved that the Corporation had raised a demand of house tax from the plaintiff vide notice Exhibit P.2 and the plaintiff had discharged his liability by paying Rs.264.60 vide receipt Exhibit P.3 in the year 1992. The evidence furnished by the official of the Corporation itself has, thus, belied the assumption of the Corporation that the lease in respect of the shop in dispute in favour of the plaintiff-appellant had been cancelled. Strangely enough, the Corporation did not produce on record any order cancelling the lease /allotment in respect of the shop in dispute in favour of the plaintiff.
Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent
-4-
Regular Second Appeal No. 3534 of 2010 (O&M).
illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit.
March 11, 2011. ak
( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both courts below.
Whether the assumption that the lease deed was cancelled in 1977 was supported by evidence.
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad
Didar Singh
MOHINDER PAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
