Nihal Chand vs Nagar Mahapalika,Kanpur

R. K. Mahajan, J.—This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 2491975 passed by Sri R. K. Garg, VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur allowing Civil Appeal No. 183 of 1974 and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 1831974 passed by Sri O.P. Srivastava, Illrd Additional Munsif, Kanpur decreeing original Suit No. 775 of 1970 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from evicting the plaintiff from the land in suit without providing an alternative accommodation. The learned lower appellate court, however, while dismissing the suit of the plaintiffappellant, also observed that since the plaintiff is in long occupation of the accommodation given by Nagar Mahapalika, which is a stall measuring 8" X 6", the equity requires that his case for an alternative accommodation may be considered on compassionate ground by the Nagar Mahapalika.

It appears that the plaintiffappellant was a lessee of the stall on Jhansi road in Kanpur and it has been transferred to the plaintiff by the earlier lessee on 1981960.

The plaintiff was carrying a petty business (Hawker). The case of the plaintiff was that he is a displaced person and refugee from the West Pakistan (District Karachi) and migrated to India. Under the Rehabilitation scheme of the Union Government, the State Government in collaboration with the Union Government, made a proposal to allot a shop in the main market in Kanpur. It appears that the road was to be widened where the stall was in existence and which he had taken on lease. The plaintiff''s grievance is that he was not given stall No. 115 in Navin Market as a result of lottery drawn despite request.

The defendantrespondent contested the suit. The plea of the defendant is that the plaintiff would be given alternative accommodation when the stall is vacated.

The appeal was taken up in revised list. Sri A. N. Bhargava has appeared to argue the appeal on behalf of the appellant and he has been heard. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent to argue the appeal.

Sri A. N. Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that there is an admission of the defendant that an alternative accommodation will be given and the plaintiff appellant would be satisfied. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of this assertion, has relied upon the averments made in paragraph 17 of the additional plea in the written statement filed on behalf of defendant Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur. Para 17 of the written statement is quoted as below with advantage

"17. That the plaintiff, who was illegally occupying the land under the said permit was also allotted an alternative stall in Navin Market with the clear understanding that he will be handed over the allotment order when he vacated the defendant''s land by removing his shop from the said land."

Relying upon the aforesaid admission of the defendant, Sri Bhargava states that the decree of the lower appellate court deserves to be modified.

Moreover, the respondent is also bound by the promise made as discussed as well as by the promissory estoppel. I would like to quote the following words of Justice Lord Denning in his book "The Discipline of Law''at page 223

"My word is my bond'', irrespective of whether there is consideration to support it. Once a man gives promise or assurance to his neighbouron which the neighbour relieshe should not be allowed to go back on it. In stating the principle, and its extensions, the lawyers use the archaic word ''estoppel'', I would prefer to put it in language which the ordinary man understands;

It is a principle of justice and of equity. If comes to this : When a man, by his words or conduct, has led another to believe that he may safely act ont he faith of themand the other does act on themhe will not be allowed to go back on what he has said or done when it would be unjust or inequitable for him to do so."

It appears from the pleadings that the scheme was to rehabilitate the refugees from Pakistan and they had to be provided alternative accommodation. It is matter of earning livelihood and the concerned authorities are bound to strict to their words. The doctrine of estoppel figures under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act.

After taking the facts and circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that the possession of the stall to the plaintiffappellant in Navin Market, Kanpur will be handedover to him simultaneously if it has not been done with the passage of time.

In the, result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree is modified to the extent that the possession would be handed over of the stall simultaneously along with the allotted shop in the Navin Market, Kanpur as an alternative accommodation if it has not been done earlier, within a month from the date of the receipt of the order otherwise the suit of the plaintiffappellant stands decreed as ordered by the trial court. There is no order as tocosts. Appeal allowed