The central legal point established is the requirement for valid termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the violation of the Civil Court's order by the respondent Municipal Council.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties heard finally.

2. By the present petitions, the petitioners are challenging the eviction notices dated 27/05/2022, issued by respondent No. 3-Municipal Council, Ahmedpur, directing petitioners to vacate their premises within seven days.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they were given vacant land on lease between years 1985-1991. The petitioners constructed tenements on it. In the year 1997, respondent No. 3 Municipal Council had issued a notice of eviction to the petitioners to vacate the leased land within a period of ten days of the notice. The said notices were challenged by the petitioners by filing civil suits, for perpetual injunction before the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmedpur. The said suits were decreed and the defendant i.e. the Ahmedpur Municipal Council, Ahmedpur was restrained from causing obstruction and interfering with the petitioners leased land without taking recourse to law. Thereafter, there was no action on the part of the Municipal Council and the petitioners continued to be in possession of the leased land by paying rent until the present similar notices being issued by the Municipal Council dated 27/05/2022.

4. The impugned notices indicated that the Municipal Council intends to construct ‘Commercial Complex’ ¼O;kikjh ladqy½ at the place where the shops of the petitioners are located. The notice also indicates that the possession given of the premises on rental basis, is quashed. The notices also indicated that the original lease agreement has expired and the petitioners were directed to vacate the land, restore it to its original position and hand over it to the Municipal Council within seven days.

5. The petitioners, thereafter, approached the Vacation Bench of this Court and this Court by it’s order dated 31/05/2022, stayed the aforesaid notices issued to the petitioners. The petitioners contend that they are in lawful possession of the leased land and have constructed structures on it and are running their shops from the date of allotment of plots for last more than 30 years.

6. The petitioners further contend that the decree of the Civil Court for perpetual injunction prohibits the respondent from issuing eviction notice, without lawfully terminating the tenancy of the petitioners. The respondents have not taken any steps to lawfully terminate the tenancy of the petitioners under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The petitioners further contend that the Municipal Council being a public authority cannot terminate the tenancy of the petitioners under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, without there being valid reasons in support of the same. The petitioners contend that there is no sanctioned proposal for construction of a Commercial Complex on the leased plots. The action of the respondent is high handed and interferes with the rights of the petitioners in continuing their peaceful, lawful possession over the leased land and also the right of the petitioners in conducting business over the leased land/ property is infringed. The stand of respondent No. 3- Municipal Council is reflected in the impugned notices – as noted above at paragraph No. 4.

7. Considering the record and submissions made, we find that number of petitioners had individually filed civil suit in the year 1997 challenging eviction notices before the Civil Court Senior Division, Ahmedpur, whereby the Civil Court has passed similar Judgments and we are quoting from one of the Judgments of Civil Court, as under :-

“16. After carefully gone through rival pleadings of parties along with their evidence and documentary proofs it is crystal clear that, the plaintiff is lessee of the defendant over the suit plot for the period of 11 months and it is admitted fact that, said tenancy was till 1992, but the defendant has issued notice to the plaintiff to vacate the possession over the suit plot in the year