(1.) The second appeal has been preferred by the Municipal Committee, Ludhiana, against the judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana, against whom on appeal, a permanent injunction stands issued requiring them to refrain from taking any further action in pursuance of three notices sent to the plaintiff under various sections of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) The cause in the suit arose in this manner. The plaintiff-respondent obtained a site from the Municipal Committee on lease for thirty years at an yearly rent of Rs. 456.66. Under the terms thereof, the plaintiff could raise construction. Under the relevant provisions of the Act, the plaintiff obtained sanction for construction valid upto a date. Meanwhile another party namely partners of the Minerva Cinema, Ludhiana, filed a civil suit against the Municipal Committee and the plaintiff, and obtained a temporary injunction against the plaintiff restraining him to raise construction, sanction of which had been obtained from the Municipal Committee as said earlier. Initially that suit was dismissed on 30th October, 1965 and the appeal too, was dismissed on 27th January, 1967. It is the admitted case of the parties that the injunction operated against the plaintiff uptil 27th January, 1967, the date of the dismissal of the appeal. On 30th January, 1967 simultaneously two notices were issued by the appellant committee against the plaintiff respondent; one under section 195-A and the other under section 220 of the Act. Section 195-A of the Act empowers the Committee to stop building operations if a building has begun but not yet completed and for the said purpose can send a notice to the owner subject to certain conditions. The second notice that date was a composite one under sections 195/220 of the Act. The former section empowers the committee to impose penalty for disobedience if the building is completed when the sanction has elapsed and then can, subject to certain conditions, require the owner to alter it or instead thereof cause acceptance of compensation to it as it may deem reasonable. Section 220 of the Act empowers the Committee to cause forcible compliance of the acts required by it to be done when it finds that the terms of any notice issued by it has not been complied with, subject to its giving six hours prior notice. The third notice was under section 172(2) of the Act which empowers the Committee to require by notice the owner or occupier of any building to remove or alter immovable encroachment etc. The third notice dated 17th February, 1967 apparently was on the assumption that the construction made by the plaintiff had tended to encroach on a public street and had not confined itself within the four corners of the leased site with the plaintiff.
(3.) The plaintiff being the target of the aforesaid notices was threatened demolition of the construction which he claimed to have made before the receipt of the notice dated 30th January, 1967 which fact he brought to the notice of the Committee vide reply dated 31st January, 1967. It was found necessary for the plaintiff to file the instant suit for injunction against the Committee as there was recurring threat of demolition of the construction made by the plaintiffs. The defendant-Committee challenged the maintainability of the suit and to the entitlement of the plaintiff to the injunction prayed for.