Sharad Kumar Vs. Dhanraj (D) through L.Rs. and Anr.
EmailSuit for recovery of possession – Municipality leasing shop to plaintiff-respondent on the basis of highest bid – Respondent on being subsequently dispossessed of the shop, filing suit for recovery of possession – In the meantime, municipality letting out the shop to another person (defendant 2) – Trial court dismiss-ing the suit, since by that time the lease period had expired – Appellate court decreeing the suit for damages only and recovery of possession refused – High Court granting the relief of recov-ery of possession – Validity. Held, since the plaintiff, re-spondent had been dispossessed unlawfully during currency of lease, he is entitled to the relief of recovery of possession. Once the plaintiff gets possession, it would be open to the municipality to take such action for eviction which may be permissible under the law.
Since the plaintiff was dispossessed unlawfully during currency of lease, he is entitled to the relief of recovery of possession of shop. However, once the plaintiff gets the possession of shop, it would be open to municipal board to take such action for eviction of the plaintiff which may be permissible under law. (Para 2)
1. This is an appeal filed by defendant no. 2. The shop in dispute, admittedly, belongs to municipal board, Jhabua. In the year 1977, municipal board decided to lease out the shop through public auction. It is alleged that the deceased respondent no.1 was a highest bidder and, therefore, the said shop was leased out to him for a period of ten years. It appears that subse-quently, the plaintiff was dispossessed. Under such circum-stances, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession and also for damages. During the pendency of the suit, the municipal board let out this shop to defendant no. 2 on rent. The trial court took a view that since the period of lease has expired, therefore, dismissed the suit (sic). However, on appeal filed by the plaintiff, the first appellate court partly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit only for damages and the relief for recovery of possession was refused. The plaintiff thereafter preferred the second appeal. The second appeal was allowed by the High Court. Against the said judgment of the High Court, defendant no. 2 is in appeal before us.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that in view of the fact that the period of lease has already been expired, the plaintiff is not entitled to relief for recov-ery of possession. We do not find any substance in the argu-ment. Admittedly, the municipal board let out the shop to the plaintiff in the year 1977 for a period of ten years. The court has found that the plaintiff was illegally dispos-sessed. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff was entitled to recovery of possession. Learned counsel then urged that since the appellant has been carrying on the business in the shop for nearly seventeen years, this Court may set aside the judgment of the High Court granting relief for recovery of possession and instead grant of relief of damages in lieu of relief for recovery of possession. Such an argument cannot be accepted. Since the plaintiff was dispossessed unlawfully during currency of lease, he is entitled to the relief of recovery of possession of shop. However, once the plaintiff gets the possession of shop, it would be open to municipal board to take such action for eviction of the plaintiff which may be permissible under law.
3. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
