Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bachan Lal Atwal vs The Cantonment Board on 4 October, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
RSA No.486 of 1986 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.486 of 1986
Date of decision:04.10.2013
Bachan Lal Atwal ....Appellant
Versus
The Cantonment Board, Jalandhar Cantt. ....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:- Mr. Robin Kanwar, Advocate
for Mr. A.K.Kanwar, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. M.S.Sachdev, Advocate
for the respondent.
JUSTICE K. KANNAN, J (ORAL)
The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in the second appeal:-
"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim as a lessee to merit relief of injunction against the defendant who admittedly is a owner when the transaction affording possession to the plaintiff described him a a licencee?"
Mr. Robin Kanwar, Advocate for Mr. A.K.Kanwar, Advocate seeks for an adjournment. I have declined the plea and proceed to take up the case, since the case is of 1986 and it has been marked to this Court for disposal under special orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. I have gone through the records with the assistance of the counsel for the respondents.
Kadian Savita 2013.10.10 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh RSA No.486 of 1986 2
Admittedly the property is in the cantonment area and it belongs to the Cantonment Board. The property was a shop bearing No.4 outside the vegetable market in Jalandhar Cantonment. Through letter dated 8.2.1982 under the directions of Cantonment Board the plaintiff had offered to pay a rent of ` 300/- per month. The plaintiff had taken the property as the highest bidder in an auction as a licencee to the property for a period of 3 years in 1982. The period has admittedly expired.
The contention was that he is a lessee not a licencee. The property offered to the plaintiff is in an area to which the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') are not applicable by an exemption notification said to have been issued under Section 3 of the Act. Under such a situation, it shall not be permissible to the plaintiff to contend that he is a lessee and not a licencee unless the transaction specifically created a lease.
Management of the property that vests in the Cantonment Board is done by virtue of the power conferred under the Cantonment Act, 1924. Section 200 grants the power of transfer by public auction for any period not exceeding 3 years at a time, the right to occupy or use any stall, shop etc. If the Board had, therefore, allowed for auction to take place and provided merely for right to licence, the successful bidder cannot enlarge his rights to seek for any protection beyond the period of licence. In a similar situation the High Court of Kadian Savita 2013.10.10 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh RSA No.486 of 1986 3 Himachal Pradesh decided in Mohan Lal and another vs. Cantonment Board 1998 (1) SLC 36 held that a suit for injunction by a licencee shall not lie and dismissed the suit. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed in the said judgment.
Plaintiff cannot himself claim to be a lessee and there are no more benefits that he could claim under the Act than as a licencee. Admittedly, the licencee period had expired and his continuation is wrong and injunction cannot be granted. The Court cannot extend any protection beyond the period which the plaintiff contracted and the decisions of the Courts below are perfectly in order and there is no scope for interference in second appeal.
This Court vide order dated 11.8.1986 has allowed for continuation of possession till the disposal of the appeal subject to the condition that the appellant deposits a sum of ` 15,900/- as arrears and pays at the rate of ` 300/- per month. The defendant- Board is entitled to take appropriate action for entry into possession would include powers securing mesne profit also and the directions given on 11.8.1986 are not to be taken as a fettering such a right to claim mesne profits for wrongful possession. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed with costs throughout and the counsel's fee ` 10,000/-.
October 04, 2013 ( K. KANNAN)
savita JUDGE
Kadian Savita
2013.10.10 10:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.486 of 1986 4
Kadian Savita
2013.10.10 10:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh