Back
2000 Supreme(P&H) 863
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.L. Anand, J.
Som Nath - Petitioners
Versus
Shree Mata Mansa Devi Pooja Sthal - Respondents
Civil Revision 2450 of 2000.
Decided On : 4 August, 2000
For the Petitioners:Mr. G.C. Dhuriwala, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Ashutosh Mohunta, Advocate.
A party seeking equitable relief must approach the court with clean hands and prove a prima facie case to succeed. Concealment of material facts and voluntary relinquishment of rights may disentitle a party from equitable relief.
Headnote:
Ejectment - Tenancy - Shree Mata Mansa Devi Shrine Act, 1991, Section 19(3) - The court dismissed the application for temporary injunction and affirmed the order of the lower court, holding that the petitioners had no prima facie case to succeed and had concealed material facts. The court found that the petitioners had voluntarily relinquished their rights and had no preferential rights for allotment of shops in any particular block. The court also noted that the petitioners' conduct was not fair and they approached the court with soiled hands. The revision was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, old tenants of the Shree Mata Mansa Devi Shrine, sought allotment of shops in a shopping complex. The defendants had constructed the complex and allotted shops to the petitioners at different places, which the petitioners contested, claiming preferential rights for allotment in specific blocks. The petitioners also filed an application for interim injunction, which was contested by the defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had no prima facie case to succeed, as they had voluntarily relinquished their rights and concealed material facts. The court held that the petitioners had no preferential rights for allotment of shops in any particular block and that their conduct was not fair. The court dismissed the revision with no order as to costs.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioners' claim for preferential rights for allotment of shops in specific blocks, their application for interim injunction, and the defendants' contestation of the same.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners had no prima facie case to succeed, as they had voluntarily relinquished their rights and concealed material facts. The court also noted that the petitioners had no preferential rights for allotment of shops in any particular block and that their conduct was not fair.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed with no order as to costs.
R.L. Anand, J. - This is a civil revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 8.6.2000, passed by the Court of Addl. Distt. Judge, Panchkula, who dismissed the appeal of the petitioners under Order 43 Rule 1, CPC, by affirming the order dated 8.5.2000, passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Panchkula, who dismissed the application of the petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC.
2. The pleadings of the parties can be summarised in the following manner :-
3. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are entitled to the allotment of the booths constructed by the defendants in the shopping complex at points X and Y in respect of booths No. 285 to 293 and 125 to 138, being old tenants of the defendants as per their undertaking dated 14.3.1992 and the allotment letters dated 3.4.2000 issued by the defendants are wrong and against the spirit of the undertaking and the petitioners also prayed for a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to allot the booths to the plaintiffs in the shopping complex at points X and Y. It was also prayed by the petitioners that a decree for permanent injunction be passed against the defendants from alloting any booth in the shopping complex at points X and Y, i.e. booths No. 285 to 293 and 125 to 138, to anybody else except the plaintiffs and till the allotment of the said booths is made, the plaintiffs be not dispossessed from their existing business activity.
4. According to the petitioners they were earlier the tenants under the Management of Mata Mansa Devi Mandir since the time of their fore-fathers. They have their respective shops in the temple premises as shown by the letters marked ABCD. At that time, the Management of the temple was which the owners of the temple who were the Pujaris of the said temple. The plaintiffs were paying regular rent to them. The Haryana Govt. enacted Shree Mata Mansa Devi Shrine Act, 1991 and took over the possession of the Shrine. A Board was constituted under the name and style of Shree Mata Mansa Devi Pooja Sthal Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) as per the said Act. All the properties of the Temple vested in the Board. The defendant-Board/Estate Officer took over the Temple in March, 1992 and issued letters to the plaintiffs that the shops will be given on rent outside the premises of the temple. As per section 19(3) of the said Act, it has been clearly mentioned that the shop keepers and other lease holders who were the tenants of the Shrine will become the tenants of the Board. After the Board took over the Management, the rent of the shops in question was increased. The defendants issued letters to the plaintiffs dated 14.3.1992 that they are being temporarily adjusted in the make-shift shops located in front of the shrine till the new shops are constructed. As soon as the shopping complex is constructed on the left hand side of the Entrance of the Mata Mansa Devi Complex, the plaintiffs will be allotted one shop each for which they will pay monthly rent regularly. The rent was increased by 50% and the plaintiffs are paying the rent regularly. The plaintiffs are running the shops for the sale of Parshad (Bhog) as shown in the letters marked EFGH. In October, 1993, the defendants threatened to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs No. 1 to 5 and 7 to 9 filed a suit for permanent injunction.
The said suit was contested by the defendants and plaintiffs No. 1 to 5 and 7 to 9 were held as tenants over the respective shops and the suit was decreed. Plaintiff No. 10 filed a separate suit, which was also decreed. Now, the defendants have constructed the shopping complex at points X and Y. In the year 1998, defendant No. 3 issued letters to the plaintiffs on 8.9.1998 for their rehabilitation. In response to the said letters, the plaintiffs applied for the allotment of the shops without prejudice to their rights of undertaking dated 14.3.1992. The defend
