PALAKOLE MUNICIPALITY Vs. B SACHIDANANDA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Palakole Municipality represented by its Commissioner and Special Officer, the defendant in OS.Nos. 63 and 68 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Narsapur, is the appellant in both the appeals. They are being disposed of by this common judgment as the facts are similar and the questions of law that arise for consideration are common.

(2.) The facts, in brief are: The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suits claiming damages from the appellant on the ground that the premises let out to them were illegally demolished without terminating the lease granted in their favour and without issuing notice of demolition. The appellant/defendant resisted the suits on three grounds: First the respondents refused to receive the notices of eviction and the notices of demolition were affixed on the subject premises in the presence of the concerned Village Administrative Officer. Second, the suits are bad as they have been filed without notice to the appellant as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 369 of the A.P. Municipalities Act (for short 'the Act')- Third, the suits are barred by limitation in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of the Section 369 of the Act.

(3.) Evidence, oral and documentary was adduced on either side. On consideration of the said evidence, the trial Court found that the appellant failed to establish that the respondents/plaintiffs refused to receive the notices of demolition and the notices of demolition were affixed on the subject premises. On that basis, it held that the demolition of the subject premises was illegal and hence the provisions of Section 369 of the Act have no application. Consequently, the suits were decreed as prayed for. Hence, these appeals by the defendant-Municipality.