REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

JAGANNATH PRASAD Appellant

V/S

MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

REX V. WRIGHT [REFERRED TO]
ATTORNEY GENERAL V. CORPORATION OF SUNDER LAND [REFERRED TO]
COVERDALE V. CHARLTON [REFERRED TO]
MADDISON V. ALDERSON [REFERRED TO]
LONG EATON RECREATION GROUNDS CO. V. MIDLAND RY. CO. [REFERRED TO]
LORD PROVOST OF GLASGOW V. GLASGOW AND S.E. RAILWAY CO. [REFERRED TO]
THE MAYOR OF TUNBRIDGE WELLS V. BAIRD [REFERRED TO]
YABBICOV V. KING [REFERRED TO]
MOIR V. WILLIAMS [REFERRED TO]
FINCHLEY ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. V. FINCHLEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
TUNBRIDGE WELLS CORPORATION V. BAIRD [REFERRED TO]
SPEDDING V. FITZPATRICK [REFERRED TO]
BATTERSEA VESTRY V. COUNTY OF LONDON ETC. ELECTRIC LIGHTING CO. [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF SYDNEY V. YOUNG [REFERRED TO]
ISMAIL V. QUEEN [REFERRED TO]
NANDU MAL V. M.C. [REFERRED TO]
SODAN SINGH V. NEW DELHI MUNICIPALITY [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH V. M.C.,BHATINDA [REFERRED TO]
WA'S EXECUTORS V. COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN REVENUE [REFERRED TO]
BALADIN V. LAKHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
GOBIND PRASAD V. NEW DELHI MUNICIPALITY [REFERRED TO]
EMPEROR V. VISHWA NATH [REFERRED TO]
JONES V. BATES [REFERRED TO]
MUHAMMED RUSTAM ALI V. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE,KARNAL [REFERRED TO]
SIMPSON V. ATTORNEY GENERAL [REFERRED TO]
MARSHALL V. BLACK POOL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
HUE V. WHITELEY [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE,MULTAN V. TAHILA [REFERRED TO]
GARVET V. TRUNO RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL BOARD OF AGRA V. SUDARSHAN DAS SHASTRI [REFERRED TO]
ORR EVING V. COLQUFOUN [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE V. SHAM DEI [REFERRED TO]
OLGA TELLIS V. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAMANI V. COLLECTOR [REFERRED TO]
B.GOVINDA RAO V. DISTT. COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM [REFERRED TO]
VISHWA NATH V. SUDHIR KUMAR BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]
PYARELAL V. SANTLAL [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE MULTAN V. ABDUL GAFOOR AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
TALLAK CHAND V. DHORAJI MUNICIPALITY [REFERRED TO]
DASTRATH MEHTO V. NARAIN MEHTO [REFERRED TO]
FIRM KASTOORI LAL SANT LAL V. M.C. JAGRAON [REFERRED TO]
M.C.DELHI V. MOHD. IBRAHIM [REFERRED TO]
ANUKUL CHANDRA V. DACCA DT. BOARD [REFERRED TO]
DWARKA PRASAD V. PATNA M.C. [REFERRED TO]
PATNA MUNICIPALITY V. DWARKA PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
R.DISTRICT BOARD MANBHUOM V. EN RAILWAYS CO. [REFERRED TO]
PEHLAD MAHARAJ V. GAUDI DUTT [REFERRED TO]
FRUIT AND VEGETABLE MERCHANTS UNION VS. DELHI IMPROVEMENT TRUST [REFERRED TO]
H S RIKHY MANOHAR LAL MR P GOYLE VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL BOARD MANGLAUR VS. MAHADEOJI MAHARAJ [REFERRED TO]
PYARE LAL VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE [REFERRED TO]
K RAMADAS SHENOY VS. CHIEF OFFICERS TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL UDIPI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. ATA MOHD [REFERRED TO]
PARASRAM MANJIMAL VS. KALOL MUNICIPALITY KALOL [REFERRED TO]
PRABHUDAS KALYANJI VS. HAJI HASAN HAJI YUSUF MAKLAI [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWANTI VS. JIUTI [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE VS. RAMKARAN GANESHILAL [REFERRED TO]
NAGAR PALIKA VS. SHRINANDLAL [REFERRED TO]
R VARADARAJAN VS. SALEM MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
GOVT OF T N VS. CHINGLEPUT DRAVIDAR KAZHAGAM [REFERRED TO]
CORPORATION OF COCHIN VS. K JANARDHANAN [REFERRED TO]
DULICHAND VS. BHAIRONDAS [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal. He lost before both the Courts below. His case is that he has been carrying on his business in a wooden cabin. A pan shop is being run by him. He came to the Court with a plea that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between him and Municipal Council. Morena and as such he cannot be evicted from the site in question. The plaintiff placed reliance on receipts which mentions the word 'ground rent'. It was on these premises the contention was raised that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant and the Municipal Council cannot evict him.

(2.) THE case of the Municipal Council, Morena was that the plaintiff was carrying on his business on a vacant space which falls within the term public street. It was further the case of the Municipal Council that no relationship of landlord and tenant exists; the plaintiff being merely a licensee sitting on the land on daily licence fee. The trial Court came to the conclusion that merely because some amount has been accepted by the Municipal Council towards the use and occupation would not confer on the plaintiff the status of a tenant. It further came to the conclusion that the Municipal Council has a right to get the encroachment removed from the space which is accessible to public by resorting to Section 223 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act' ).

(3.) THE first appellate Court maintained the decree of the trial Court. The plaintiff in this appeal reiterates the arguments which failed to impress the Courts below. It is contended that relationship of landlord and tenant does exist as Municipal Council in the receipts issued in favour of the plaintiff/appellant has indicated the payment as 'rent'. It is further submitted that place where the cabin exists is not covered by the term public street. According to him Section 223 of the Act is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. He has also argued that the construction does not fall within the term building and in any case before evicting the plaintiff alternate accommodation should be provided to the plaintiff.

Click here to view full judgment.

JAGANNATH PRASAD Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address