MUNICIPAL BOARD Vs. MANSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals arise out of four different suits which were exactly similar in nature & which had been heard together by both the lower Cts. One single judgment has governed all the four suits in both the lower Cts. and, therefore, these appeals are dealt with together in this Ct. also. In all these four suits the pltfs. had claimed that they were owners of the sites of their houses situated in mohalla Chahkatoti within the limits of the Municipality of Mathura. Action had been taken by the Municipal Board to realise arrears of rent for the land of the houses from these pltfs. under the Municipalities Act. Thereupon these suits were brought for a declaration that the pltfs. themselves were the owners of the sites of the houses & that they were not liable to pay any rent at all to the Municipal Board. There was further a prayer for an injunction restraining the Municipal Board from continuing the processes for realisation of the arrears of rent & for a direction ordering the Municipal Board to refund the sums already realised.

(2.) The lower appellate Ct. has held that the pltfs. are not the owners of the land of their houses but are the permanent tenants of their land. It has further held that no rent has been paid by the pltfs. for a long time & that the pltfs. have been contesting the right of the Municipal Board to realise the rent. Under these circumstances, the lower Court has come to the view that the Municipal Board had no right to realise rent from the pltfs. Under section 291, U. P. Municipalities Act & on this view, has granted an injunction to the pltfs. restraining the Municipal Board from continuing the proceedings for realisation Under section 291 & has also granted a decree for refund of sums realised. The Municipal Board has come up in appeal against this grant of injunction by the lower appellate Court.

(3.) Cross objections have also been filed in three of these Appeals Nos. 1648, 1649 & 1651 by the pltfs .resp's. of those appeals. In the cross objection the resp's. claimed that the decision by the lower appellate Ct. that they were not proprietors of the site also was incorrect & may be set aside. In the relief asked for by them in the cross-objection they desire that their suits be decreed for all the reliefs which they had claimed in their plaints.