MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. SURINDERJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, through its Commissioner against the judgment and decree dated 20.1.1984 passed by the Sub Judge First Class, Jalandhar in a suit for permanent injunction filed by the Plaintiff-Respondent - Surinderjit Singh restraining the Defendant - Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar from recovering an amount of Rs. 22, 116/- from him on account of house tax for the years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 in respect of Bhojan Bhandar/Canteen situate in the premises of Old District Courts, Jalandhar The findings were affirmed by the learned lower appellate Court.

(2.) It was pleaded in the suit that the Plaintiff-Respondent was running a Bhojan Bhandar/Canteen from the premises owned by the State Government at the Old District Courts at G.T. Road, Jalandhar. Plaintiff-Respondent has obtained the premises from the State Government through the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar on lease in an open auction. The lease was extended from time to time and the yearly rent of the premises was Rs. 1.30 lacs. The State authorities have permitted the Plaintiff-Respondent to raise temporary construction in the courtyard. The Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar issued three bills to the Plaintiff demanding house tax. The total amount which the Plaintiff was called upon to pay was Rs. 22,116/- on account of house tax for the years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82. The Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar appeared and took a preliminary objection that Civil Court had got no jurisdiction to try the suit. After completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed:

(3.) The Court of Sub Judge First Class, Jalandhar held that the suit was maintainable. However, it held that since the Municipal Corporation had acted in utter violation of the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, therefore the Civil Court could decide the suit. The Court further held that it was an admitted case of the parties that the Plaintiff tenant was tenant on lease and his tenancy was terminated on 31 st March, 1982. The Court further held that there is no evidence that the Plaintiff Respondent has raised any construction. It was, thus, concluded that the demand made by the Defendant-Appellant was not justifiable.