JAS RAJ Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, FAZILKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Municipal Committee, Fazilka, invited tenders for lighting gas lamps in the town. The plaintiff-appellant submitted his tender on June 29, 1964. On the same day the President of the Municipal Committee passed an order permitting him to light the gas lamps in anticipation of sanction of the Municipal Committee. The appellant thereupon started this function on the same day and continued to light the gas lamps till November 14, 1964. When the matter was put up before a meeting of the Municipal Committee on July 24, 1964, a resolution was passed sanctioning the plaintiff to light lamps from June 29, 1964 to August 15, 1964. Relating to this period payment was made to him as per contract. As no payment was made for the subsequent period from August 24, 1964 to November 14, 1964, the plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 1940.40 as charges for lighting the lamps and also claimed damages of Rs. 1125/- for breach of contract. He also sought refund of the security deposit of Rs. 200/-. During the pendency of the suit the Municipal Committee was superseded by the Administrator. The suit was contested by the defendants on various grounds and mainly on the plea that since the sanction to light lamps was accorded by the Municipal Committee to the plaintiff only upto August 15, 1964, he was incompetent to continue to work thereafter and as such he was not entitled to claim any remuneration for the period after August 15, 1964. The learned trial Court held that even in the absence of the sanction of the Municipal Committee the plaintiff was entitled to receive remuneration for lighting the lamps upto November 14, 1964, in view of section 70 of the Contract Act. The plaintiff was also found entitled to the refund of the security deposit of Rs. 200/-. His claim for damages for breach of contract was, however, declined. He was granted a decree for Rs. 1940.40 as remuneration and Rs. 200/- as refund of the security deposit.

(2.) An appeal was filed by the defendant-Municipal Committee against the judgment and decree of the trial Court and lower appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court in respect of the remuneration for lighting lamps for the period from August 24, 1964 to November 14, 1964 on the finding that the sanction for lighting lamps having expired on August 15, 1964, the Municipal Committee was not liable to pay any remuneration to the plaintiff for the subsequent period. The plaintiff was, however, found entitled to the refund of the security deposit of Rs. 200/-. On these findings the appeal was partly accepted and in modification of the judgment and decree of the trial Court the plaintiff was granted a decree for Rs. 200/- with proportionate costs.

(3.) The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to claim remuneration for lighting the lamps for the period in respect of which no sanction was accorded by the respondent-Municipal Committee.