IMPORTANT POINT
With sheer passage of time, tenant cannot seek title in himself.

Hemant Gupta, J.—Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 27.8.2008, whereby on an application filed by the plaintiff-respondents under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was ordered that the possession of the plaintiffs is not that of rank trespasser and the defendants could seek eviction of the plaintiffs in due course of law.

2. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction along with an application for ad-interim injunction. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs are statutory tenants under the Municipal Council since the year 1976. At the time of inception of tenancy, the rate of rent was Rs.250 per month, which is now Rs.1,005 per month. Therefore, it was alleged that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and cannot be dispossessed by force, whereas the officers of the defendants are harassing the plaintiffs without any justification and causing obstructions in the running of the business of the plaintiffs.

3. In the written statement, the stand of the defendants was that the land in question was given to the plaintiffs on Teh Bazari for exhibiting Rehris on old G. T. Road and not for constructing any type of shop etc. The plaintiffs have constructed two shops measuring 6 × 3 over the drain/water channel, illegally, unauthorisedly and without the permission of the Municipal Council and without getting any site plan sanctioned. It was also pleaded that at the property in dispute is a public premises and the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act) do not apply.

4. The learned trial Court dismissed the application for ad-interim injunction holding that Section 181 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 clearly authorizes Municipal Committee, the Executive Officer or the Secretary that by notice any person who has committed a breach of the provisions of sub-section (i) to stop unauthorised construction to remove or alter any such encroachment. The Court has to bear in mind the detriment, while granting ad-interim injunction, to the public property and public premises. The Court found that the Municipal Council is authorised to remove unauthorised construction over the drain/water channel as per Section 181 of the Haryana Municipal Act? 1973 and consequently dismissed the application. The learned first Appellate Court, inter alia, found that there is serious dispute regarding title of the property and that the plaintiffs have proved their possession over the suit property and are entitled to the protection.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that it is the admitted case of the plaintiffs that they were inducted as tenants over the suit property earlier on payment of rent of Rs.250 per month and now on payment of Rs.1,005 per month. Thus, it cannot be said that there is any dispute about the identity of the property and/or its title as the plaintiffs have admitted themselves to be the tenants under the petitioner-Municipal Council. It is contended that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the premises in dispute and the plaintiffs are not the protected tenants in view of the notification dated 3.6.1959 issued under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, now valid and in operation in terms of Act No.24. It is also contended that Teh Bazari is a licence granted to the occupier and such licence does not create any interest in favour of the person in whose favour such permission is granted. Therefore, the Municipal Council is competent to revoke the licence and take possession of the property in dispute. Reliance is placed upon Pritam Kumar and another v. Nagar Palika (Municipal Committee), Ratia, District Hissar, 1985 (2) PLR 99 which, in turn, relied upon a Division Bench judgment reported Sardar Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and another, 1966 P.L.R. 169.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the res