Amritsar Improvement Trust vs Satya Wati

J.V. Gupta, J.

This judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeals Nos. 1976, 1775 of 1984, as the question involved is common in all these cases. The facts giving rise to Regular Second Appeal No. 1776 of 1984 are as follows.

The plaintiff respondent Satya Wati, filed the suit for the grant of the permanent injunction restraining the defendantappellant from interfering with her possession of the plot No. 129, Development Scheme of City Centre Area, Amritsar, on the allegations that the appellant got sanctioned a development scheme of the City Centre Area, Amritsar, under the Town Improvement Act, 1922, according to which it undertook to develop the area of the shopping centre by filling the lowlying area to bring the same at the level about three feet higher than the road and for the construction of the shops. The plaintiff allured by the various amenities declared by the defendant in the scheme, purchased 115 square yards of plot, No. 129, regarding which the agreement was duly executed, in part performance of which a sum of Rs. 20,645.00 towards the sale price and Rs. 100.00 as security, were paid and she entered into possession thereof. According to the contract, she was to complete the construction thereon within 30 months and as such, she raised the construction. The area was not developed and she had to incur huge expenditure in raising the level; necessary amenities were not provided; she had always been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, the defendant was not entitled to recover the remaining instalments till the amenities were provided; condition No. 11 of the agreement was illegal and penal and that the action of the appellant in resuming the plot was illegal. The suit was resisted on the ground that the plaintiff had not paid the instalments as per the agreement between the parties. Besides, only a show cause notice for resumption of the plot was given and, therefore, the suit as such was not maintainable. The payment of Rs. 20,645.00 towards the sale price and Rs. 100.00 towards security was admitted. The trial Court found that the impugned notice for forfeiture of the sale price already paid and the resumption of the plot was illegal. The defendant could not interfere with her possession of the plot. If there was any breach of the agreement on the part of the plaintiff, the defendant could compel specific performance of the agreement. In view of these findings, the plaintiff''s suit was decreed. In appeal, the learned District Judge affirmed the said findings of the trial Court and, thus maintained the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendant has come up in appeals to this Court.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that only a show cause notice for resumption of the plot was given. No order for the resumption of the plot as such has been passed and, therefore, the suit for the grant of the permanent injunction was not maintainable. In any case, argued the learned counsel, the notice could not be held to be illegal, because the same was in accordance with the terms of the agreement executed between the parties. The plaintiff could not become the owner of the suit property without payment of the total sale price as per agreement.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I find force in the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant.

The Courts below have mainly relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Jagdish Chand v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2587 : 1972 R.C.R.(Rent) 862, wherein the vires of Section 9 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act (Punjab Act 27 of 1952) were challenged as unconstitutional. Therein, it was held that Section 9 of the aforesaid Act was unconstitutional as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. The ratio of the judgment in Jagdish Chand''s case (supra), has no applicability to the facts of the present case. Here, admittedly, there is an agreement executed between the parties. The action had been taken in accordance with the terms of the said agreement. If there was any violation of the said agreement, the parties are entitled to seek their remedy accordingly. Under the circumstances, the issuance of the notice for resumption of the plot as such could not be held to be illegal. The approach of the Courts below in this behalf is wholly wrong, illegal and misconceived. The plaintiff cannot become the owner of the suit property without payment of the sale price as agreed to between the parties.

In this view of the matter, all the three appeals succeed and are allowed. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside and the plaintiff''s suits are dismissed with costs.

It was stated at the bar that the plaintiffs were ready to pay the requisite sale price; provided the interest thereon is not charged from them as has been done in other cases by the appellant. However, the appellant may consider their request as and when they approach it in this behalf.