RAMANLAL GOVINDRAM Vs. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two groups of petitions involving a common question as to the validity of sec. 437A of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 one group consisting of Petitions Nos. 1124 of 1966 1480 of 1966 1514 of 1967 81 of 1967 82 of 1967 1567 of 1967 1568 of 1967 to 1574 of 1967 1578 of 1967 489 of 1968 to 493 of 1968 472 of 1967 473 of 1967 896 of 1967 and 1113 of 1967 concerns Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation while the other consisting of Petitions Nos. 141 of 1967 178 of 1967 to 202 of 1967 250 of 1967 251 of 1967 and 222 of 1967 to 240 of 1967 concerns Baroda Municipal Corporation. The facts giving rise to the petitions in each respective group are identical and we will therefore state the facts of Petition No. 1124 of 1966 as typical of the petitions in the first group and the facts of Petition No. 141 of 1967 as typical of the petitions in the second group.

(2.) PETITION NO. 1124 OF 1966 :- The petitioner was at all material times in occupation of Slum Clearance Quarter No. 55/64 belonging to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. The petitioner claimed to be in authorised occupation of the said premises but the Deputy Municipal Commissioner by a show cause notice dated 19th/20th November 1965 issued under sec. 437A sub sec. (2) called upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be evicted from the said premises. The ground on which the order of eviction was proposed to be made was that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the said premises a ground specified in clause (b) of sec. 437A sub-sec. (1). The petitioner appeared in answer to the show cause notice and at the inquiry held by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner showed cause but the Deputy Municipal Commissioner was satisfied that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the said premises and he therefore served a notice dated 11th April 1966 on the petitioner under sec. 437A sub-sec. (1) ordering the petitioner to vacate the said premises within one month from the service of the notice upon him and stating that if the petitioner failed to do so all necessary steps would be taken to evict him under sec. 437A sub-sec. (3). It may be mentioned that the Deputy Municipal Commissioner claimed to exercise the power under sec. 437A sub-secs. (1) and (2) in virtue of a deputation order dated 2nd November 1964 passed by the Municipal Commissioner under sec. 49 sub-sec. (1) deputing the power under sec. 437A sub secs. (1) and (2) to him. Since the petitioner was threatened with forcible eviction the petitioner filed the present petition challenging the validity of the notice issued by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner under sec. 437A sub-sec. (1).

(3.) PETITION NO. 141 OF 1967 :- Since 1948 the petitioner is in occupation of a small plot of land belonging to the Baroda Municipal Corporation. The petitioner has constructed a cabin on this plot of land and is carrying on business in that cabin. The petitioner claims to be a tenant of the Baroda Municipal Corporation in respect of this plot of land but according to the Baroda Municipal Corporation this plot of land was given by the then Baroda Municipal Borough to the petitioner as a licensee and the petitioner is accordingly not a tenant in respect of this plot of land as claimed by him. There was a litigation between the petitioner and other displaced persons like him to whom the respective plots of land were given by the Baroda Municipal Borough on the one hand and the Baroda Municipal Borough on the other in regard to the status of the petitioner and other displaced persons whether they were tenants or licensees. This litigation was decided in favour of the petitioner and other displaced persons by the Extra Assistant Judge Baroda who held that they were tenants of the Baroda Municipal Borough in respect of the land in their respective occupation. There was also dispute between the petitioner and other displaced persons on the one hand and j the Baroda Municipal Borough on the other as to the amount of rent or B compensation payable by the petitioner and other displaced persons to the Baroda Municipal Borough. The Baroda Municipal Borough claimed that from 1st August 1960 compensation was payable by the petitioner and other displaced persons at the rate of four annas per square foot while according to the petitioner rent was payable only at the rate of three annas per square foot. On 1st April 1960 whilst this dispute was pending between the parties the Baroda Municipal Borough was converted into a Municipal Corporation under the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 and the Municipal Commissioner thereafter decided to avail himself of the provisions of sec. 437A of that Act. The Municipal Commissioner issued a show cause notice dated 25th September 1966 under sec. 437A sub-sec. (2) pointing out to the petitioner that according the Baroda Municipal Corporation the petitioner was a licensee but even if according to the decision of the learned Extra Assistant Judge (which was in appeal) the petitioner was to be regarded as a tenant the petitioner had not paid the amount of monthly rent remaining legally due from him for a period of more than two months from the month commencing from 1st March 1965 and an amount of Rs. 110-95 remained due from the petitioner for the period upto 31st August 1965 and calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be evicted from the plot in his occupation on this ground. The petitioner showed cause by his advocates letter dated 3rd October 1966 and the contention raised by him in this letter was that he was not liable to pay rent at the rate of more than three annas per square foot and that so far as rent for the period upto 31st July 1966 was concerned he had already deposited the same at the rate of three annas per square foot in the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division Baroda and the Baroda Municipal Corporation had actually withdrawn the same except for the period of last six months. The petitioner pointed out in this letter that he was ready and willing to pay rent directly to the municipal authorities at the rate of three annas per square foot but the municipal authorities were not prepared to accept the same. The petitioner thus contended that there was no default by him which would invite the exercise of the power under sec. 437A sub-sec. (1). The Municipal Commissioner was however not impressed by the contention of the petitioner and he therefore issued a notice dated 20th January 1967 under sec. 437A sub-sec. (1) stating that he was satisfied that :-