JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) - Plaintiff Amit Jain who was successful in the trial court but has been non-suited by the lower appellate court has filed this second appeal. 2. Plaintiff alleged that he is owner in possession of the suit property having six constructed shops in Industrial Plot No. 59 in Old Faridabad. He had let out the shops to different tenants. Land underneath the shops is owned by him. The suit property is not located in any sector developed by Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA/defendant no. 1). Consequently, defendants have no concern with the suit property. However, they threatened to demolish the disputed shops. Plaintiff, therefore, filed suit claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendants from doing so. 3. The defendants resisted the suit on the ground that the suit land had been acquired by State of Haryana for development of Sector 19 vide award dated 12.1.1973 passed by Land Acquisition Collector and defendants had taken possession thereof pursuant to acquisition. It was thus pleaded that defendants are owners in possession of the suit land and therefore, illegal construction raised by the plaintiff is liable to be demolished. 4. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 4.10.2007 decreed the plaintiff’s suit. However, first appeal preferred by defendants has been allowed by learned District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 12.1.2009 and thereby plaintiff’s suit has been dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this second appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. Counsel for appellant contended that even lower appellate court has affirmed the finding of the trial court that plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property and the same has not been acquired and is not owned and possessed by the defendants, but nevertheless plaintiff has been non-suited by the lower appellate court without any sufficient reason. 7. On the contrary, counsel for defendants/respondents contended that plaintiff has been rightly non-suited by the lower appellate court because he has raised illegal construction in the land which stands acquired by State of Haryana and stands transferred to defendants. 8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 9. It has been proved that the disputed land has not been acquired and has not been transferred to the defendants. There is categorical finding to this effect by both the courts below. 8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 9. It has been proved that the disputed land has not been acquired and has not been transferred to the defendants. There is categorical finding to this effect by both the courts below. Tehsildar, Faridabad had been appointed as Local Commissioner for demarcation of the suit land. The Local Commissioner reported specifically vide demarcation report Annexure A1 that the disputed land has not been acquired and plaintiff’s disputed shops exist in unacquired land. No objection was preferred against the said report of Local Commissioner by either side. It is thus manifest that the suit land has not been acquired. Consequently, plaintiff is proved to be owner in possession (through tenants) of the suit property. The only main ground on which the claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants was that the suit land had been acquired. However, said ground pleaded by the defendants has not been substantiated and has rather been disproved. Consequently, there was no reason to non-suit the plaintiff by the lower appellate court. 10. Reasons assigned by the lower appellate court for non-suiting the plaintiff have been recorded in paragraph 16 of its judgment which is reproduced hereinunder:- “16. It has now to be seen as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to injunction? Whether the Court can come to the said of a person who violates law ? It is the plaintiff’s case that the property was an industrial plot, it was being used as shops, commercial user had started. It has not been shown that any permission was taken for change of user. It has not been shown that any plans were got sanctioned before the construction was started. The plaintiff did not take any permission for subdividing the property. There has been flagrant violation of the rules. The Court cannot come to his aid. The conduct of the plaintiff disentitles him to claim injunction. He has violated the rules and the law. He did not take permission to change permission to change the user. He did not take any permission to sub-divide the property. His conduct is not fair or honest therefore the relief of permanent injunction could not be given to him. A person who seeks injunction must come to the Court with clean hands. If he acts in an unfair or unequitable manner, he cannot get the relief. He did not take any permission to sub-divide the property. His conduct is not fair or honest therefore the relief of permanent injunction could not be given to him. A person who seeks injunction must come to the Court with clean hands. If he acts in an unfair or unequitable manner, he cannot get the relief. He cannot seek the assistance of the Court to restrain the Authorities. His conduct disentitle him to any relief. Reference may here be made to AIR 1953 Rajasthan 150; and (1962) 64 PLR 982. When the question is of unauthorized construction, the Court cannot come to his aid to desist the defendant from taking action. The relief could not have been given to him. The finding recorded on issue no. 2 is reversed. The appeal is accepted. The suit is dismissed with special costs of Rs 1000/-. Decree sheet be prepared and file be consigned.” 11. A perusal thereof reveals that the plaintiff has been non-suited on completely untenable grounds. The grounds recorded by the lower appellate court to non-suit the plaintiff are completely beyond pleadings and evidence. No such plea was even raised by the defendants to non-suit the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff had to opportunity to depict that his construction was not illegal. Moreover, plaintiff had already filed separate suit against Municipal Corporation, Faridabad which had also issued notice to the plaintiff for demolition of the disputed shops on the ground that the same had been constructed without getting building plan sanctioned. The said suit has since been decreed by the trial court vide judgment dated 16.1.2007 (Annexure A2) restraining the Municipal Corporation from demolishing the disputed shops except in due course of law. Defendants have no concern whatsoever with the suit property. The same does not fall in sectors or areas developed by the defendants. Consequently, even assuming for the sake of argument that the plaintiff has raised illegal construction, even then defendants have no right or authority whatsoever to demolish the same. Consequently plaintiff is entitled to injunction prayed for. 12. From the aforesaid, it is manifest that the lower appellate court gravely erred in non-suiting the plaintiff on completely untenable grounds. Consequently, above mentioned finding of the lower appellate court to nonsuit the plaintiff-appellant is completely perverse and illegal and therefore, legally unsustainable giving rise to substantial question of law in this regard. 12. From the aforesaid, it is manifest that the lower appellate court gravely erred in non-suiting the plaintiff on completely untenable grounds. Consequently, above mentioned finding of the lower appellate court to nonsuit the plaintiff-appellant is completely perverse and illegal and therefore, legally unsustainable giving rise to substantial question of law in this regard. The said substantial question of law is accordingly answered in favour of the plaintiff – appellant for the reasons already recorded hereinbefore. 13. As a necessary upshot of the discussion aforesaid, the instant second appeal is allowed. Judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are set aside and judgment and decree of the trial court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant are restored, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs throughout.