Judgment:
Sham Sunder, J.
1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2009, rendered by the Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Faridabad, vide which he accepted the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2008, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad.
2. The brief facts of the case, are that the plaintiff (now appellant) has been running a small handcart (Rehri) of Chhole Bhatura, 15' x 20' at the site of B.K. Chowk, near Super Bazar Medicines, STD Booth, NIT, Faridabad, fully detailed in the plaint, since 1987, under a valid licence No. 7 issued by the defendant (now respondent) on 17.08.1987, on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. It was renewed upto 31.03.1999. It was further stated that the handcart (Rehri) was fixed at a distance of 40-50 feet from the main road. The plaintiff (now appellant) had been depositing the licence fee for running the business at the aforesaid place. It was further stated that the defendant threatened the plaintiff (now appellant) to remove the handcart (Rehri), in question, from the said site, illegally. The officials of the defendant was many a time asked not to do so, but to no avail. On their final refusal, left with no alternative, a suit for permanent injunction was filed.
3. The defendant (now respondent) put in appearance, and contested the suit, by way of filing written statement, wherein, it was pleaded that the suit was not maintainable; and that the plaintiff had neither cause of action nor locus standi to file the suit. It was further pleaded that die plaintiff had approached the Court, by concealment of material facts, and, as such, was not entitled to the relief claimed. It was admitted that the plaintiff was running a. small mobile Rehri in NIT, Faridabad. However, the licence of the plaintiff was not renewed after 31.03.1997. It was further stated that this Court had directed the Municipalities and Local Bodies not to allow and get installed mobile Rehri or fixed Rehries, within a distance of 10 feet of the road. It was denied that any licence fee was deposited by the plaintiff. It was further stated that since the licence of the plaintiff was not renewed after 31.03.1997, he was not entitled to the injunction, prayed for.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:
1. Whether the licence is form-B under Rule 49(c) and under Rule 50 of P.F.A. Rules 1955 and PFA (Pb.) Rules, 1958, for manufacturing and sale of Chhole Bathure etc. that licence is renewed upto 31.3.1999? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree, as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
6. Relief.
5. The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence, in support of their case. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the trial Court decreed the suit.
6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the appellant (defendant), which was accepted by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Faridabad, vide his judgment and decree dated 30.05.2009.
7. Feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed, by the appellant/plaintiff.
8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through and perused the documents, carefully.
9. The following substantial questions of law, arise, in this appeal, for the determination of this Court:
1. Whether the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court, are based on mis-reading and misappreciation of evidence, resulting into recording of perverse finding that the plaintiff was not entitled to the decree for permanent injunction.?
2. Whether the first Appellate Court fell into a legal error in holding that the provisions of Section 240 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 were applicable to the facts of the case?
10. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the first Appellate Court, was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the Municipal Corporation was competent to remove the handcart (Rehri) of the plaintiff (now appellant), even if, the same was fixed at a far off distance from the road, as per the provisions of Section 240 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1994. He further submitted that the plaintiff (now appellant), being licencee, and his licence having been renewed upto 31.03.1999, his handcart (Rehri) could not be removed by applying the provisions of Section 240 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1994. He further submitted that the approach of the first Appellate Court in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, was completely wrong, He further submitted that the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court, being illegal, were liable to be set aside.
11. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that originally the plaintiff (now appellant) was given a licence upto 31.03.1997. He further submitted that, no doubt, the licence was renewed upto 31.03.1999. He further submitted that the first Appellate Court was competent to take into consideration the subsequent events that since after 31.03.1999, the licence of the plaintiff (now appellant) was not renewed, he (plaintiff) was not entitled to the permanent injunction. He further submitted that the plaintiff did not amend his plaint, so as to claim the relief of mandatory injunction regarding the renewal of licence. He further submitted that even the action of the defendant in not renewing the licence was also not challenged as illegal by the plaintiff. He further submitted that since the plaintiff had fixed his handcart (Rehri on the road side, the Municipal Corporation, was competent to remove the same, as per the provisions of Section 240 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, without service of any notice. He further submitted that the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court, being legal and valid, were liable to be upheld.
12. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion.the appeal deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. In Madvan Nair v. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10 S.C.C. 533, Harjeet Singh v. Amrik Singh (2005) 12 S.C.C. 270, H.P. Pyarejan v. Dasappa : A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 1975 : (2007) 1 S.C.C. 546, and Gurdev Kaur and Ors. v. Kaki and Ors. : J.T. 2006 (5) S.C. 72, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at by the first Appellate Court, even if the same are grossly erroneous, as the legislative intention, was very clear that the legislature never wanted second appeal to become a 'third trial on facts' or 'one more dice in the gamble.' It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court, in interfering with the judgments of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction on 11.11.1998. His licence was not renewed after 31.03.1999. No doubt, he applied for renewing his licence, but the same was not renewed by the authorities concerned. It means that after 31.03.1999 the plaintiff (now appellant) was running his handcart (Rehri) without any authority or licence. Since the plaintiff very well knew that his licence had not been renewed after 31.03.1999, he could either file a separate suit for mandatory injunction or could amend the suit challenging the action of non-renewal of licence, as illegal and seeking the relief for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to renew his licence. He had no right to run his handcart (Rehri) on the road side. Even otherwise the licencee has got no legal right in the property. He can only use the property during the period the licensor gives him permission to do so. The first Appellate Court was right in holding that since after 31.03.1999, the licence for keeping handcart of Cholle Bhature, on the Municipal land, on the road side was not renewed, the Municipal Corporation, was competent to remove the same, without issuance of any notice to him, as per the provisions of Section 240 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1994. The first Appellate Court was, thus, right in declining the relief of permanent injunction to the plaintiff (appellant).
13. The findings of fact, recorded by the first Appellate Court, on the aforesaid points, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law on the point, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. The substantial questions of law, depicted above, are answered against the appellant.
14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands dismissed with costs.