ABDUL JABBAR Vs. SARDAR BHAGWAN SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are seven connected second appeals arising out of judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Bahraich, dated 10-1-1966. They have been filed by Abdul Jabbar, Tarsem Lal Bugga, Mukhtar Ahmad, Noor Mohammad, Abdul Razzaq, Gulam Mahmood and Tillan and others. The appellants are tenants of certain shops of which respondents 1 and 2 of these appeals are owner-landlords. Respondent No. 4 of these appeals is Municipal Board, Bahraich and respondent No. 5 is the Executive Officer. A notice was served by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board. Bahraich, under Sec. 263 of the U. P. Municipalities Act (Thereafter referred to as the Act) on the owner-landlords of these shops directing them to demolish the shops on the ground that they were dangerous and in ruinous condition. Intimation of this notice was passed on by the owners to all these appellants who are in occupation of these shops as tenants. Thereupon the present appellants filed suits for injunction against the Municipal Board and the Executive Officer challenging validity of the notice issued under Sec. 263 of the Act on the ground amongst others that the notices had been issued by the Executive Officer in collusion with the landlords; that the shops were in safe, sound and habitable condition and not in a dangerous condition.

(2.) On all these counts the Munsif found against the appellants holding definitely that the shops were in dangerous and ruinous condition. Validity of the notice was in the result upheld and the suits dismissed. The appellants then took the matter in appeal to the Civil Judge, who affirmed the decision of the trial court on all the above points and dismissed the appeals. It is in these circumstances that they have come to this Court in second appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants Sri Shafiq Mirza urged before us the following points; Firstly, it was submitted that the notice issued under Sec. 263 of the Act was bad in law because it was not preceded by a show cause notice to the tenant-appellants; secondly, that the notice was illegal because the Board should have satisfied itself of the conditions required by Sec. 263 and the satisfaction of the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, is not sufficient in law. Thirdly, that the notice was bad because it was issued only to the owner-landlords and not to the occupiers and finally it is urged that the provision contained in Sec. 263 of the Act is unconstitutional as it transgressed the fundamental right of the appellants to hold property and offended Art. 19 of the Constitution.