RAMAMOORTHY AND ANR. Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, TIRUPATTUR MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision petitions raise an interesting point.

(2.) WITHIN the limits of Tirupattur Municipality, there is a big banyan tree and under its spreading branches, a number of bunks are said to have been put up. These petitioners are carrying on their business there as bangle merchants. The land itself belongs to the local Devasthanam and rents are paid apparently to the Devasthanam also. In as much as these bunks are inside the municipal limits, they have got to take licences from the Municipality and such licences have been granted. But what has happened is, that on account of crows sitting on the branches of the banyan tree and their droppings fouling beneath, these merchants have put up flat pandals or awnings over their bunks. But they have been prosecuted by the Municipality, because they have taken out licences only for bunks and they have now put up unauthorised constructions beyond the terms of the licence.

(3.) MR . K.V. Sankaran, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has successfully persuaded me that this unauthorised construction would not amount to a 'hut' within the meaning of Section 3(ii), because, as it stands, it is not a building which is constructed principally of wood, mud, leaves, grass or thatch and there is no declaration by the Municipality for the purposes of this Act that a structure of this description comes within any temporary structure of whatever size or any small building of whatever material made which the Council may declare to be a hut for the purposes of this Act. Therefore, the convictions cannot stand, and they are hereby set aside, and the fines, if collected, will be refunded.