The court emphasized that the prior case's ratio was inapplicable due to the ongoing lease, and directed prompt rehabilitation of the appellants by the Municipal Corporation.

ORDER

Per: Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. The instant Writ Appeal under Clause 2(1) of MP Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Act, 2005 is preferred against the order dated 17.06.2022 passed in WP No.1523/2022 whereby learned Writ Court without going into the merits of the matter had disposed of the writ petition in the light of the order dated 04.05.2022 passed in WP No.26757/2021 (Smt. Renu Sharma(Mishra) and Another vs. State of M.P. and Ors).

2. The said order has been assailed on the ground that the ratio of the order passed in the case of Smt. Renu Sharma (supra) was not applicable to the present case, since in the said case, the lease agreement between the parties had expired and there was no renewal of the said lease and in that context, the counsel for the petitioner, therein had sought liberty to approach the appropriate forum and in light of the said fact, the said petition was disposed of with following directions:

"(1) In case petitioners take recourse to proceedings before appropriate forum within fifteen days from today, the interim protection against eviction shall continue for fifteen days only.

(ii) In case proceedings are initiated before the Authority or competent Court, the said Authority/Court shall decide the case on its own merits without being influenced by the order passed today.

(iii) With the aforesaid, these writ petitions stand disposed of."

3. In the present case, the lease was very much in existence till 25.04.2027, but it was terminated vide order dated 22.12.2021 alleging that the conditions of the agreement had been flouted, therefore, it was liable for cancellation, with a further stipulation that the possession of the shop be handed over to the corporation within a period of 30 days, else they will have to face legal consequences and since the order passed in the matter of Smt. Renu Sharma (supra) was not applicable to the facts of the present case, it was alleged that disposal of the petition in the light of the said order was per se illegal.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant had raised a similar ground that the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge suffers from perversity and illegality as it has been decided on the basis of an order, the facts of which were not akin to the present case and, therefore, the order passed by learned Single Judge was sought to be set aside and it was further prayed that the present petition be allowed and the notice/order dated 22.12.2021, be quashed.

5. This court while issuing notices vide order dated 09.07.2022, as an interim measure directed the respondents not to forcibly dispossess the appellants.

6. During the course of hearing on 02.08.2022, allegedly officials of the Respondent/State demolished the said shops, therefore, the matter was agitated before this court and vide order dated 26.08.2022, this court directed that till further orders no construction activity or further dispossession/demolition shall take place and it was also made clear that even the debris which was lying on the spot shall not be removed without leave of this court and status quo as it exists today shall be maintained by the parties. In the said order, the Collector was directed to file his affidavit in support of the reply about the course of events of demolition undertaken without leave of this court.

7. On 15.09.2022, a reply in compliance of the order dated 26.08.2022 was filed on behalf of Collector District Gwalior, wherein in para 5 it was averred that the Revenue Authorities of State of MP including the Collector, Gwalior and SDO Jhansi Road since were not made party and, hence, they were not aware about the proceedings in the instant Writ Appeal and since the appellants had not submitted the copy of the relevant order before them, ignorantly direction to demolish some of the shops possessed by the appellants was passed and some shops were even demolished on 02.08.2022.

8. In para