MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE MOGA Vs. INDER MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos. 1124 and 1125 of 1970 which contain similar questions of law and fact. The facts in the judgment are being given from Regular Second Appeal No. 1124 of 1970.

(2.) Briefly, the case of the plaintiff is that he was owner of half share of shop No. 165 situated in Easte Mandi Moga. He, it is averred, constructed a temporary tin shed in front of his shop in the year 1961 on his own land and not by encroaching upon the municipal land. The defendant after the expiry of about six years served a notice on him demanding Rs. 35/- on account of licence fee for the year 1967-1968, saying that he had encroached upon the municipal land by constructing a tin shed. He has challenged the notice and prayed that the defendant be restrained from recovering the amount of Rs. 35/-. The suit was contested by defendant who pleaded that the property in which the shed had been constructed belonged to it and therefore, it was entitled to recover licence fee.

(3.) The trial Court held that the plaintiff was not the owner of the property and that the defendant could claim licence fee regarding it. Consequently, it dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the finding of the trial court that the plaintiff was not the owner of site in dispute. He, however, held that the defendant could not issue the notice for recovery of the licence fee under section 173 of the Punjab Municipal Act as alleged. Therefore, he accepted the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The defendant has come up in second appeal to this Court.