Gokal Chand Mital, J. - (1.) RAJ Masih was tenant of Gurdial Kaur in respect of the shop in dispute. When Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, wanted to demolish the shop, he filed civil suit for permanent injunction and applied for temporary injunction. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court refused to grant interim injunction to him. This is revision by him.
(2.) THE interim injunction has been declined mainly on the two grounds (1) that the Plaintiff did not give notice under Section 396 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') before filing the suit and (2) that appeal against the order of demolition passed by the Municipal Corporation was comment under Section 269 of the Act and the suit was barred. After considering the matter, I am of the view that the Courts below failed to exercise their jurisdiction and acted illegally and with material irregularity in not granting interim relief to the Petitioner to which he was entitled on the facts of the case. Gurdial Kaur had leased out the shop to the Petitioner as a tenant and when notice under Section 269 of the Act was issued it was issued to Smt. Gurdial Kaur and after hearing her objections, order for demolition was passed. No notice was given to the tenant nor he was afforded an opportunity to place his view point for consideration by the concerned authority. Section 269 specifically provides for the issue of a notice to the aggrieved person. In this case there would be two aggrieved persons who have interest in the property namely, Smt. Gurdial Kaur, the owner and landlady and Raj Masih as a tenant. Hence, under the aforesaid section the tenant was also entitled to a notice and an opportunity to defend his possession. He was denied this. Since he was not a party to the proceedings he was not obliged to file an appeal although he may have the remedy of appeal as well. Once the proceedings are conducted without opportunity and hearing, not only in violation of the principles of natural justice but also in violation of the provisions of Section 269(1) of the Act, inspite of the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court, he would be entitled to file a suit in view of Full Bench decision of this Court in case State of Haryana and Ors. v. Vinod Kumar and Ors., 1986 (1) P.L.R. 222, Therefore, on these peculiar facts, he has two remedies, one to file the suit and the other to file an appeal and it would be for him to elect and choose the remedy. In this case he has chosen the remedy of a civil suit. The decision to the contrary recorded by the courts below is hereby up -set.
(3.) ADVERTING to the notice under Section 369 of the Act, since proceedings were not taken after notice to him and there is no order against him, it was not incumbent upon him to issue notice under Section 396 of the Act. Moreover, the shop would have been demolished during the notice period, rendering his suit infructuous and that is why in a suit for injunction Sub -section (3) provides for non -issue of notice.;