IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: September 02, 2025 Pronounced on: September 04, 2025 RSA No.2040 of 1994 Municipal Commi/ee Ferozepur Jhirka . . . . Appellant Vs. Juma Khan . . . . Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- *Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate with Mr. Deepak Singh Saini, Advocate for the appellant. *None for the respondent. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. It is defendant's appeal against reversal. 2. Plain&ff–Juma Khan (respondent herein) filed a suit for permanent injunc&on in respect of agricultural land measuring 55 kanal 09 marla situated in village Ferozepur Jhirka contending that he was in possession of the said land as a tenant. He was also a biswedar (co-sharer in shamlat land). It was alleged that the defendant–Municipal Commi6ee (appellant herein) had no right to lease out the land to others, since the Haryana Municipal Common Lands (Regula&on) Act, 1974 had been declared uncons&tu&onal, and therefore the land no longer vested in the Commi6ee. 3. The defendant–Municipal Commi6ee denied the claim, contending that the plain&ff had taken the land on lease from it; that the lease had expired and that plain&ff was estopped from ques&oning the Commi6ee’s &tle. 4. ABer framing necessary issues and taking evidence, trial Court dismissed the suit on 09.06.1993. However, the first Appellate Court vide its Sarita Rani 2025.09.04 17:30 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order RSA No.2040 of 1994 2025:PHHC: 120108 judgment dated 10.02.1994 reversed the findings by holding that the Municipal Commi6ee had no &tle and decreed permanent injunc&on in plain&ff’s favour. 5. In this second Appeal, the defendant has challenged the reversal. 6. On no&ce, respondent put in appearance through his counsel. However, at the &me of final hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent. 7. This Court has considered submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and has also gone through the en&re record. 8. As per se6led legal posi&on, in view of doctrine of Estoppel under Sec&on 116, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a tenant, who has obtained possession under a landlord, is estopped from denying the landlord’s &tle during the con&nuance of tenancy or even aBer expiry, un&l possession is lawfully surrendered. Besides, permanent injunc&on is an equitable relief and cannot be granted to protect illegal or unlawful possession. 9. ABer the Full Bench decision in Rajinder Prashad v. State of Haryana (AIR 1980 P&H 37), the Haryana Municipal Common Lands (Regula&on) Act, 1974 was held uncons&tu&onal. However, this did not ipso facto vest land in individual tenants. Dispute over ves&ng could be between Gram Panchayat and biswedars, but can not be pleaded as a ground for tenant to deny landlord’s rights. 10. As far as plain&ff’s claim as biswedar is concerned, the trial Court rightly held that plain&ff produced no documentary evidence to prove his status as biswedar/co-sharer. Appellate court also affirmed this finding. Hence, he had no independent right in the shamlat land. 11. S&ll further, revenue records and documents (Exs. D1–D10) proved that the plain&ff took the land on lease through auc&ons held by the Municipal Commi6ee. Specifically, Ex. D8 (auc&on dated 07.07.1982) and Ex. Page 2 of 3 Sarita Rani 2025.09.04 17:30 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order RSA No.2040 of 1994 2025:PHHC: 120108 D10 (Rapat Roznamcha entry of 1982–83) clearly showed plain&ff’s possession was under a lease granted by the Municipal Commi6ee. Once such tenancy was established, plain&ff could not turn around and deny landlord’s &tle due to Sec&on 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. 12. The lease period having expired, plain&ff’s possession thereaBer was unauthorised. Law does not protect a tenant’s unlawful holding over aBer lease expiry by gran&ng him a decree of permanent injunc&on. 13. As far as the effect of Haryana Municipal Common Lands (Regula&on) Act, 1974 being declared as uncons&tu&onal is concerned, that did not create ownership or possessory rights in favour of plain&ff. If at all, the issue of ves&ng was between the Panchayat and the Municipal Commi6ee, but plain&ff had no locus to claim injunc&on against the Municipal Commi6ee on that basis. Injunc&on cannot be used to protect a trespasser or a tenant holding over without right. Since plain&ff’s possession became illegal aBer expiry of lease, he was not en&tled to equitable relief. 14. As such, it is held that the First Appellate Court erred in overlooking the principle of tenant estoppel and the expiry of lease. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 10.02.1994 are set aside. The Trial Court judgment dated 09.06.1993, dismissing the suit, is restored. Present appeal is accordingly allowed. September 04, 2025 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.09.04 17:30 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order