RANJIT SINGH,J - (1.) STATE is aggrieved against the order passed by the lower Appellate Court in partly accepting the prayer of the respondent, whereby the order passed by the Trial Court was modified by issuing direction to the petitioner-State to first compensate the plaintiff after assessing the value of the construction of his house before getting the physical possession of the suit land.
(2.) THE respondent-plaintiff had taken a land measuring 700 Sq. Yards situated at Jind at the rent of Rs. 250/- for half year, which was renewed from time to time till the year 2002 when the rent was increased to Rs. 940/-. The petitioner-State, however, refused to extend the lease beyond 31.7.2002 and did not accept rent from the respondent thereafter. Order under Sections 5 and 7 of the Haryana Public Premises Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act') was passed on 26.2.2004. The respondent filed an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner which was also dismissed. Respondent then filed a civil suit, alleging that the eviction proceedings filed against him were not maintainable on the ground that the State has filed the petition through Secretary, Zila Sainik Board, who was not competent and authorized to file such an application on behalf of the State. Respondent also claimed that he has made improvement and has raised some construction on the residential house and while passing the order of his eviction, the value/expenses of the constructions was not assessed. Alongwith the suit, the respondent filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking interim injunction restraining the petitioners and others from taking physical possession of the suit land on the basis of orders dated 26.2.2004 and 16.2.2006, which were also termed as illegal.
(3.) THE petitioners appeared in response to the notice and contested the suit as well as the application seeking interim injunction. It is pleaded that the land in question was given on lease to the respondent, which was not extended after 31.7.2002. The reason given in this regard is that the petitioners intend to construct a poly clinic for welfare of ex-servicemen. It is also disclosed that the respondent has carried out construction not only over the disputed portion of the land but has also encroached area measuring 1888 Sq. meter, which is not on lease with him. The order of eviction of the respondent has already been made and he also remained unsuccessful in the appeal. The direction given is that the respondent is not to be ejected forcibly, except in due course of law. Since the petitioners were seeking to eject the respondent by following due process of law, grant of interim injunction as sought was opposed.;