MADAN LAL BHATIA Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD MORADABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs appeal. Suit No. 190 of 1971 was filed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant Municipal Board from demolishing or otherwise removing or causing damages to the Shop No. 71 situate on Station Road, Moradabad.

(2.) THE plaint was instituted with the allegation that the Municipal Board, Moradabad through its Executive Officer granted a licence to the plaintiff to construct a permanent shop over an area of 12 ft. x 8 ft. on Station Road, Moradabad. The plaintiff had raised permanent construction attached to the earth and had spent about Rs. 5,000/ - in the construction and had fixed the shutter and got electricity installed. The shop is being used by the plaintiff for carrying on his business of cloths and residence. The rent up to September, 1971 has already been paid. The plaintiff has been served with a notice by the Municipal Board through its Tax Superintendent dated 27th November, 1971 in which the dimensions of the shop have wrongly been mentioned and the plaintiff by the said notice was called upon to remove the construction within 3 days. Plea that the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board has no right to revoke the licence as mentioned in the notice was raised. Further plea was that the permission granted to the plaintiff could not be revoked by the notice dated 27th November, 1971. The suit was filed on 30th November, 1971.

(3.) THE trial Court framed 6 issues and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the licencee tenant of the land in suit on behalf of the defendant and his licence cannot be revoked. Issue No. 5 was to the effect as to whether the land in suit forms part of the road Patari and if so its effect. On this issue, the trial Court has recorded a finding that the land in suit forms part of the road patari. The trial Court has also observed that before it no provisions of law was shown to the effect that the Municipal Board cannot grant an irrevocable licence in respect of the road side patari land. This observation has been made under Issue No. 1 by the trial Court. In appeal the judgment of the trial Court has been reversed and it has been held that the Executive Officer of Municipal Board has no right to grant a permanent licence within the provisions of U.P. Municipalities Act. Challenging the judgment of the Appellate Court the present appeal has been filed.