NOOR RAHMAN Versus NATIONAL BOOK FOUNDATION
MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J. --- This is revision petition against the decisions of the learned Civil Judge as well as the Additional District Judge, whereby they partially dismissed the suit of the present petitioner.
2. The petitioner had instituted a suit for the recovery of possession of a shop described in the head note of the plaint and demanded rent at the rate of Rs.4,000 per month with effect from 19-5-1991 till the recovery of its possession and there was also a prayer for the recovery of Rs.2,80,000 as damages against the defendants 1 to 6.
3. The plaintiff/petitioner was the successful bidder of the suit shop which he obtained through public auction held by the Cantonment Board, Mardan and the possession was delivered to him after the deposit of the entire amount due from him to the Cantonment Board. The plaintiff/ petitioner was using the shop and paying the dues of the Cantonment Board. However, defendants 1 and 2, by misusing the powers of all the respondents, forcefully took possession of the shop by breaking open the locks and damaging the personal property.
4. This suit was contested and at the conclusion of trial, the learned Civil Judge passed the decree for the possession of the shop and the recovery of rent payable by the plaintiff to the Cantonment Board, whereas the claim of market rent and the demand for recovery of damages was dismissed. The learned appellate Court, however, reversed the findings of the learned trial Court on Issue No.8 and thereby a decree of Rs.one lac was passed against the defendant No.3 Faridullah Khan (in person) whereas the remaining plea with regard to the enhanced rent was declined, hence this revision petition.
4. Arguments heard and record examined.
5. The record shows that the plaintiff was the person lawfully in possession of the shop on payment of prescribed, rent to the Cantonment Board. The defendants/respondents 1 and 2 being National Book Foundation required a place for their office. By using the force and the official status of the respondents, they forcefully dispossessed the petitioner and took possession of the said shop for the purpose of office of the National Book Foundation. It was established through evidence, and as rightly held by the learned appellate Court, that the said action was without the due process of law. It amounted to highhandedness and misuse of authority by the functionaries of the State against a citizen and his property. The damages of Rs.one lack and that too against an officer will not be a sufficient compensation to the plaintiff/petitioner. The rent paid by the petitioner to the Cantonment Board as a result of being a successful bidder and after paying a considerable amount of premium was certainly not the market rent. It was certainty less than the market value.
6. If the Government agency requires a property of a citizen for the public purpose, there were legal ways of acquisition or requisition of property. The use of brutal force was never authorized and cannot be permitted. The lukewarm decisions of the Courts merely encourage the official agencies to repeat such display of misuse of authority and thus, the rights of the individual citizens are likely to be infringed repeatedly. The people are thus, justified to demonstrate their lack of confidence in the system of State machinery.
7. So far as the claim of possession of the suit shop and damages are concerned, the petitioner/plaintiff is satisfied but with regard to the claim of rent he has reservations-. The rent, that has been decreed in his favour, was not the prevailing market rent. It was the rent payable by an allottee to the Cantonment Board and not by a normal tenant to the landlord, whereas the position of the respondents 1 and 2 is that of a trespasser who should have been subjected to the payment of enhanced rent. There is sufficient evidence on the file indicating the rent upto Rs.9,000 p.m. but since the plaintiff himself claimed the rent at the fate of Rs.4,000 p.m. with effect from the date of his forceful dispossession, therefore, the amount over and above the said claim cannot be allowed. Since the respondents have taken an extraordinary step of misuse of the official authority, therefore, they were liable to pay the rent at the rate so determined by the plaintiff/petitioner. If the State functionaries can use the property of a citizen by their choice, the citizen, shall at least be, entitled to receive the compensation of his choice, specially when the amount so claimed is at the minimum of the prevailing market rent of such premises.
6. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed, the finding of both the Courts with regard to the determination of payable rent is modified and the petitioner/plaintiff is held entitled to a sum of Rs.4,000 per month as the rent of the said shop with effect from the date of dispossession till its vacation.
H.B.T./3/P Order accordingly.