Aryna Gupta vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust

J.V. Gupta, C.J.

This will dispose of R.S.A. No. 1448 of 1978 as the question involved is common in both the appeal.

This is plaintiff''s second appeal whose suit for permanent injunction restraining the dependent from resuming Booth No. 87 has been dismissed.

Plaintiff Krishan Lal (now deceased) filed a suit against the Ludhiana Improvement Trust for permanent injunction to the effect that the defendant be restrained from resuming Booth No. 87 and from forfeiting the advance amount of Rs. 3800/ and also from taking possession of the said Booth. According to the plaintiff, the said booth was put to public auction by the Improvement Trust on 24th August, 1971, and the plaintiff was declared the highest bidder at Rs. 16,000/. He paid Rs. 38,00/ as advance out of the said sale price on the same date and the possession of the Booth was given to him. Later on, he received a notice Exhibit PW 2/3 dated 4th September, 1973, calling upon him to show cause as to why the Booth be not resumed and Rs. 3800/ be not forfeited as he had not paid the balance amount of Rs. 8480/. He sent his reply on 10th September, 1983 (Exhibit PW3/1), and along with it he also sent a cheque for Rs. 8480/. According to the plaintiff since he was away from Ludhiana for more than one year and, therefore, he was unable to pay the instalments. However, the defendant did not accept the cheque and the same was returned with a letter dated 2nd November 1973. According to the plaintiff, in the circumstances the order of resumption of the Booth was illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction.

The suit was contested by the defendant on the pleas that the remaining amount was to be paid in instalments and that since the plaintiff had failed to pay the amount in installments, he rendered himself liable to the forfeiture of the amount of Rs. 3800/ and the Booth was also to be resumed. Thus, the order of resumption and forfeiture was legal and authorised and that the explanation offered by the plaintiff was duly considered by the competent to resume the Booth in dispute when the plaintiff failed to pay the balance amount in instalments. Consequently, the plaintiff''s suit was dismissed.

In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, affirmed the said finding of the trial Court and thus maintained the decree dismissing the plaintiff''s suit.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Rule 18 framed under the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act provides that if the purchaser fails to make payment of the money due from him to the Trust on due date as intimated by the Chairman, he shall be liable to pay a penal interest as contemplated therein, and, therefore, the interest and penalty could be imposed on the plaintiff under th said rule, but there was no occasion to resume the Booth. He further submitted that during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff died and he is in possession of the Booth since 1971 and, therefore, in the circumstances, necessary amount by way of penalty and interest as contemplated under rule 18 of the Act be recovered from him as was done in cases of certain other persons.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it is directed that the Improvement Trust will consider the matter of the plaintiff under rule 18 as mentioned above. After the amount is determined and plaintiff deposits the same within the time allowed by the Improvement Trust, the Booth may not be resumed, failing which the defendant will be entitled to resume the Booth and forfeit the earnest money as well. With these direction the appeal is dismissed.