Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. - (1.) GRAM Panchayat, Village Bapoli, District Panipat is owner of 50 shops. These shops are released on licence/lease every year by way of auction. Lalit Narula, the petitioner was the highest bidder for the year 2013 -14 and was thus, to hold possession of the shops No. 1 and 2 till 31.3.2014 only. In the auction held for lease period 2014 -15, one Sunil son of Sh. Rakam Singh, resident of Village Bapoli, District Panipat was the highest bidder at the rate of Rs. 12,000/ - per month. Petitioner -plaintiff continues to be in possession despite notice of vacation having been sent to him by the respondent -Gram Panchayat. Finding no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner -plaintiff, both the Courts below have concurrently held his application for interim relief under Order XXXIX rules 1 & 2 CPC against him. It has also been found that irreparable loss and injury rather would be to Sunil, who is the highest bidder and has got the lease from 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2015. Thus, balance of convenience also does not lie in favour of the petitioner. Main suit seeking relief of permanent injunction is pending. It is not mentioned therein that lease for the year 2014 -15 has been given to highest bidder Sunil and not to the plaintiff.
(2.) CONSIDERING all the facts and circumstances, the lower Court even noticed that the plaintiff, now petitioner herein, had not approached the Court with clean hands as he never disclosed that the shops had been auctioned for the year 2014 -15 in favour of Sunil son of Sh. Rakam Singh. Observations of the Appellate Court are reproduced here below: - .... The respondent -Gram Panchayat being owner of the shops has every right to put the same to auction. The fact regarding re -auction of the shops for the year 2014 -15 by Gram Panchayat Bapoli has been concealed by the appellant while seeking the discretionary relief of injunction. If the auction has been conducted by the Gram Panchayat without following due procedure as established under law, the alternative remedy available with the appellant would be to approach the competent authority for setting aside the auction. As per the auction proceedings, Sunil son of Rakam Singh gave the highest bid for the shops in question. Even otherwise specific stand taken by the respondent -Gram Panchayat has been that the possession is being taken by the Panchayat by adopting due process of law. After the lease period, the petitioner has no right to continue his possession of the shops in question. Sunil son of Rakam Singh is the highest bidder who is to be given possession of the shops in question by the Gram Panchayat and it is the Gram Panchayat which is taking possession from the petitioner in due process of law. Rather, acting very smartly, though the true owner i.e., Gram Panchayat is taking the possession as per law, the petitioner after lease has got a criminal case registered against the Sarpanch of the village clearly with a view to put pressure upon him. The overbearing attitude of the petitioner is also note worthy.
(3.) IN these facts and circumstances, the authorities cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, i.e., Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and others Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequreia [Dead] through L.Rs. and others : 2012 [2] RCR [Civil] 441; Rame Gowda [D] by LRs Vs. Mr. Varadappa Naidu [D] by LRs and Anr. : 2004 [1] RCR [Civil] 519; Naurata Ram Vs. Raldu Ram and others, 2007 [3] RCR [Civil] 1; Gone Rajamma and others Vs. Chennamaneni Mohan Rao : 2010 [3] CCC 336 [AP] are of no help to him as facts found therein are quite at variance and with due deference and thus the law therein, does not support the cause of the petitioner.;