R.N.Misra, J. - (1.)On 21-3-1965, the Tahsildar of Cuttack (defendant No. 4) published a notice inviting intending bidders for allotting of the Sairat, namely the sole and exclusive right to hold a canteen, betel shop and cold drinks stall within the premises of the Cuttack Collectorate for the year 1965-66, i.e. 1st April, 1965 to 31st of March, 1966. The auction was held on 31-3-1965 and there were many bidders including the plaintiff. The bid given by the plaintiff at Rs. 16,200/- was the highest and was accepted. The plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 6,050/- out of the bid money and was put into possession of the canteen located within the Collectorate. Plaintiff found that in violation of the monopoly right conferred under the auction sale, several unauthorised vendors were permitted to open stalls within the premises of the Collectorate which very much adversely affected the plaintiff's business. Plaintiff represented to the public authorities and demanded that the monopoly conferred on the plaintiff should be protected but adequate steps were not taken in that behalf. When plaintiff demanded execution of a formal contract specifically providing for the monopoly right of the plaintiff, defendants were not agreeable to incorporate the said clause. Plaintiff was called upon to pay the balance money. Therefore, on 21-1-1966, the suit was filed asking for a decree directing the defendants to enter into a covenant of lease with him with a specific clause providing for the monopoly right as aforesaid and for a decree for recovery of damages of Rupees 12,550/-and for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with plaintiff's right till 31st of March, 1966, to carry on the business.
(2.)All the defendants filed a joint written statement. Defendants denied that any monopoly right was intended to be conferred on the plaintiff in the matter of selling confectionary articles within the area nor had they undertaken any obligation to protect such alleged right of the plaintiff. They denied that plaintiff suffered any loss as a fact. Plaintiff's claims were also otherwise refuted as not tenable in law.
(3.)The learned Additional Subordinate Judge came to hold:-
(i) although there was no written contract, the conduct of the Tahsildar (defendant No. 4) and the facts stated in other documents exhibited in the case indicated unquestionably that it was the duty of the defendants to stop vending within the Collectorate building by others; (ii) plaintiff had signally failed to prove that he had sustained any loss in the matter on account of mala fides of the defendants; and (iii) if plaintiff had succeeded in establishing the mala fides as alleged, he would have been entitled to damages of Rs. 3,600/- relating to the period between 1-4-1965 and 30-7-1965. The suit was ultimately dismissed. Plaintiff has carried this appeal against the aforesaid decrees.