NAGPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. BHAURAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgments and decrees passed by Seventh Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 470/1986 and Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 1281/1984 on 31/12/1985.

(2.) The respondent, the original plaintiff, claimed that he was a lessee of shop no. 1 having been inducted therein by the appellant, the original defendant, on 1/11/1968, initially at the rent of Rs. 50/- per month and later at the rent of Rs. 150/- per month. The respondent submitted that although the suit shop was given to him on lease on 1/11/1968, the lease agreement was styled as agreement of licence provided for the allotment of the suit shop for the period of one year from 1/04/1969 to 31/03/1970. The contract was never renewed in writing but the rent continued to be paid by the respondent up to the date of the suit. Initially, the respondent was carrying on business of cotton and general brokership from the suit shop and later on he changed his business to that of sale of liquor from the suit shop. He also obtained a liquor licence from the competent authority. Suddenly on 18/08/1984, the respondent received a notice from the appellant calling upon him to vacate the suit shop alleging that the liquor business being carried on from the suit shop by the respondent was leading to nuisance and filing of complaints by the persons in the vicinity of the shop and that change of user of the suit shop amounted to breach of conditions of licence. By the notice, the appellant also threatened the respondent that if he failed to vacate the suit shop, he would be forcibly evicted therefrom. Respondent, therefore, filed a Civil Suit against the appellant for declaration and permanent injunction.

(3.) The appellant resisted the suit by filing his written statement. Occupation of the respondent of the suit shop with effect from 1/11/1968 was not denied. However, it was contended that the suit shop was given on licence with effect from 1/04/1969 for a period of one year expiring on 31/03/1970. It was further contended by the appellant that as per the conditions of the licence, particularly condition no. 6, the respondent could not change the user of the suit shop without permission of the appellant. It was further submitted that since this condition was breached by the respondent, a notice for vacating of the suit shop was issued by the appellant to the respondent. It was submitted that the appellant being an autonomous body had necessary powers for eviction and, therefore, respondent was not entitled to seek any protection from the Court. It was also submitted that the suit was bad in law for want of statutory notice under Section 384 of Nagpur Municipal Corporation Act, a mandatory requirement for instituting a suit against it. On these grounds, it was urged by the appellant that the suit be dismissed.