RSA RSA RSA RSA----116 116 116 116----2025 2025 2025 2025 147 147 147 147 Municipal Committee, Sangrur Municipal Committee, Sangrur Municipal Committee, Sangrur Municipal Committee, Sangrur Chanan Singh Chanan Singh Chanan Singh Chanan Singh CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. appellant judgment and decree dated 30.09.2024 passed by the First Appellate Court District Judge, Sangrur, confirm Court. 2. Bighas, situated in Village referred to as the original plaintiff) was given on lease to the original defendant for the purpose of storage of garbage. The term of expired on 3 the original defendant did not stop original defendant requested fo months w.e.f. 01.04.2013 to 30.06.2013. The original defendant agreed to 2025 2025 2025 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH Municipal Committee, Sangrur Municipal Committee, Sangrur Municipal Committee, Sangrur Municipal Committee, Sangrur VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS Chanan Singh Chanan Singh Chanan Singh Chanan Singh CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Ms. Anu Chatrath, Senior Advocate with Ms. Dhamanpreet Kaur, Advocate for the appellant. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. Present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘original defendant’) judgment and decree dated 30.09.2024 passed by the First Appellate Court District Judge, Sangrur, confirming the decree The relevant facts in brief a situated in Village Badrukhan, owned by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the original plaintiff) was given on lease to the original endant for the purpose of storage of garbage. The term of expired on 31.03.2013, but despite the request made by the original plaintiff, the original defendant did not stop usage of the said land original defendant requested for usage of the land for another period of 03 months w.e.f. 01.04.2013 to 30.06.2013. The original defendant agreed to IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH RSA RSA RSA RSA----116 116 116 116----202 202 202 2025555 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) Date of decision : 15.07.2026 Date of decision : 15.07.2026 Date of decision : 15.07.2026 Date of decision : 15.07.2026 ........Appellant ........Appellant ........Appellant ........Appellant VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS ........Respondent ........Respondent ........Respondent ........Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Ms. Anu Chatrath, Senior Advocate with Ms. Dhamanpreet Kaur, Advocate Present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the (hereinafter referred to as the ‘original defendant’), impugning the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2024 passed by the First Appellate Court the decreetal of the suit by the trial The relevant facts in brief are that the property measuring owned by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the original plaintiff) was given on lease to the original endant for the purpose of storage of garbage. The term of the lease despite the request made by the original plaintiff, usage of the said land. Per contra, the r usage of the land for another period of 03 months w.e.f. 01.04.2013 to 30.06.2013. The original defendant agreed to (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) Date of decision : 15.07.2026 Date of decision : 15.07.2026 Date of decision : 15.07.2026 Date of decision : 15.07.2026 Present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the , impugning the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2024 passed by the First Appellate Court – tal of the suit by the trial re that the property measuring 30 owned by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the original plaintiff) was given on lease to the original the lease despite the request made by the original plaintiff, , the r usage of the land for another period of 03 months w.e.f. 01.04.2013 to 30.06.2013. The original defendant agreed to ATUL SETHI 2026.07.23 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA RSA RSA RSA----116 116 116 116----2025 2025 2025 2025 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) ----2222---- pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- per month to the original plaintiff, as such, the original plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.2,70,000/-, which was not paid. Consequently, the original plaintiff filed a suit for recovery. 2.2 The original defendant contested the suit; on merits admitted the lease term upto 31.03.2013; but denied having taken the land for the extended period upto 30.06.2013. 2.3 Various issues were framed by the trial Court. 2.4 The parties led their respective evidence. 2.5. The trial Court decreed the suit for recovery and the order has been upheld by the First Appellate Court, as such, the original defendant has filed this Regular Second Appeal before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the original plaintiff could not produce any documentary evidence to show that the appellant had used the property for an additional period of 03 months. Both the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have wrongly relied upon the resolution dated 09.04.2013 (as mentioned in Annexure A-1), passed by the Municipal Council, Sangrur. The said resolution only indicates that the Executive Officer and the President were empowered to extend the lease term for a period of 05 years, but no such agreement or letter was either signed by the Executive Officer or by the President. It is contended that there is a categorical statement by Sanitary Inspector-Jasbir Singh, DW1 that during the said period, garbage was thrown in some other site belonging to Municipal Council, Sangrur. 4. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the paper-book. ATUL SETHI 2026.07.23 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA RSA RSA RSA----116 116 116 116----2025 2025 2025 2025 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) ----3333---- 5. This fact is not disputed that Vijay Gupta, the then Executive Officer of Municipal Council, Sangrur, had submitted an affidavit before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, New Delhi (Annexure A-1) attached with the paper-book. As per the averments in the said affidavit, this fact is admitted that Municipal Council, Sangrur had taken the land measuring 36 Bigha on Ubhawal Road, Sangrur, on lease basis, for disposal of solid waste of the city and the term of the lease is valid till 31.03.2013. This fact is also mentioned that the owner of the land had filed an application before the Municipal Council to vacate the same and desired that he is not ready to extend the lease agreement. The application given by the owner of the land was presented before the House of the Municipal Council in a meeting held on 09.04.2013 and the House had resolved to extend the lease period. There is a categorical admission in the said affidavit that in terms of the said Resolution passed by the House, Municipal Council, Sangrur had extended the lease period upto 30.06.2013. The statement of Jasbir Singh, Sanitary Inspector, DW1 that some other land was being used for throwing of the garbage is contradictory to the aforesaid affidavit submitted by the Executive Officer before the NGT. Per contra, in support of the oral statement given by the Sanitary Inspector, DW1, there is no documentary proof by way of any resolution of the Municipal Council or by way of proving the photographs of the alleged new site. In such circumstances, the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court has rightly relied upon the evidence led by the original plaintiff and held that the original defendant is liable to pay the cost of usage of the land in question for the extended period of lease. ATUL SETHI 2026.07.23 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA RSA RSA RSA----116 116 116 116----2025 2025 2025 2025 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) ----4444---- 6. Consequently, no merit is found in the present appeal, as such same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, present appeal stands dismissed. Decree be drawn accordingly. 15.07.2026 15.07.2026 15.07.2026 15.07.2026 Atulsethi (HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN) (HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN) (HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN) (HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No ATUL SETHI 2026.07.23 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh