RANIPET MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. D KANNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of die learned Additional District Judge, Vellore, in A.S.Np. 21 of 1985, reversing the judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Vellore, in O.S. No. 124 of 1979. The plaintiff, Ranipet Municipal Council, by its Special Officer is the appellant in the present Second Appeal.

(2.) THE suit was filed by the Ranipet Municipal Council claiming a sum of Rs. 21,460/- with future interest. According to the plaintiff Ranipet Daily Market used to be leased out every year by public auction to the highest bidder for the right to collect fees from the permanent stall holders, from the temporary stall-holders, from the vegetable vendors etc., and also to collect fees from the persons who bring food articles to the market as mentioned in the auction notice. In the public auction held on 31.3.1978 the right to collect the licence fee for the abovesaid stalls, head-loads etc. had been leased out by public auction for the period from 1.4.1978 to 31.3.1979, and the defendant was the highest bidder in the auction for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- THE defendant paid a sum of Rs. 12,500/- after confirmation of the lease and the defendant had agreed to pay the balance of Rs. 37,500/- in nine instalments each instalment of a sum of Rs. 4,172/-excluding the interest. THE amount paid (Rs. 12,500/-) was to be adjusted for the last three months namely, January, February, and March, 1979. THE auction notice was published in the District Gazette. THE defendant was paying the lease amount on various date and the particulars of payment which were made between 31.3.1978 and 20.10.1978 have been given in the plaint totalling to a sum of Rs. 29,170/. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had paid only the abovesaid amount and there was a balance of Rs. 20,830/-. THE amount should have been paid by the end of December, 1978 itself and the defendant had defaulted to pay the amounts inspite of repeated demands. THE defendant was also liable to pay penal interest for the defaulted period. Inspite of having received notice, the defendant did not pay the amount. THE power of attorney had received the notice. It is further stated that the defendant was always represented by Kandasamy who is none other than her own son. As a matter of fact in the bidders list and other communications it was only the Power of Attorney who has signed for and on behalf of the defendant. It was further contended I that the defendant had enjoyed the benefit of the collections of the rents from all the stall holders and therefore, the defendant was bound to pay the arrears of lease even as damages under Section 65 of the Contract Act.

(3.) IT is true that in the present case that there has been no proper agreement between the parties as contemplated under Section 69 of the District Municipalities Act. But it is not as though the plaintiff would be disentitled to claim the amounts due under the agreement between the parties. Section 65 of the Contract Act provides for a case where an agreement was found to be void, any person who had received any advantage under such agreement was bound to restore the advantage or to make compensation for it to the person from whom he had received it. Under Section 70 of the Contract Act also whether a person lawfully does anything for another person and others knowing to him, not intending to do so gratuitously for the benefit and such other persons enjoyed the benefits thereof, the latter was bound to make compensation to the former.