PUTLI BAI Vs. MUNICIPAL CORP. GWALIOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by Putlibai appellant against (1) Municipal Corporation Gwalior and (2) Ramcharan respondent, alleging that her husband Tejumal was the tenant of the Municipal Corporation in respect of a stall No. 95 with its appertunent open space 6' x 3' in the Victoria Market Lashkar. But the corporation unauthorisedly and without notice to her auctioned the stall on 31 -5 -60 in favour of Ram Charan. She gave a notice to the Corporation on 1 -6 -60 and instituted this suit on 30 -7 -60. In the meantime, on 29 -7 -60 the defendants threatened and attempted to dispossess her. The suit was dismissed by the trial Judge for want of notice to the Municipal Corporation as required by section 401 of the M. B. Municipal Corporation Act No. 23 of 1956. The plaintiff's appeal has been dismissed by the Second Additional District Judge, Gwalior.

(2.) DEFECTS pointed out by the Courts below in the notice dated 1 -6 -60 are two: (1) That it was addressed to the Municipal Commissioner and not b the Municipal Corporation; (2) That in respect of the cause of action which arose on 29 -7 -60 no separate notice was given and it could not have been mentioned in the notice dated 1 -6 -60.

(3.) UNDER section 400 of the said Act the Commissioner is empowered on behalf of the Corporation to institute defend or withdraw from legal proceedings under the Act and also to admit compromise or withdraw and claim made under the Act, and also to obtain such legal advice and assistance as he would from time to time think it necessary or expedient to obtain. The only fetters imposed arc that the Commissioner cannot admit, compromise or withdraw any claim in a suit in which the whole amount claimed exceeds Rs. 500 without the previous sanction of the Standing Committee or where the total mount claimed exceeds Rs. 2000 without the previous sanction of the Corporation. The present suit has been valued at Rs. 200.