MOOL CHAND Vs. AMARJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are Petitioners and Defendants 1 and 2 have been arrayed as Respondents in the same sequence as shown in the plaint. Thus, hereinafter they are being referred to as Plaintiffs and Defendants.

(2.) Two markets (fish market and meat market) adjoining each other but separated by 9 inch thick brick wall having independent and separate approach, had been constructed by Defendant No 2. Fish market and meat market were meant for exclusive sale of fish and meat respectively. Stalls have been constructed in each market The allotment thereof is regulated by Defendant No. 2, the owner, under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1979 (shortly hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Bye-laws framed thereunder. Similarly, sale of articles like fish, meat, eggs and pork etc. is regulated by issuance of licences under a separate set of Bye-laws framed under the Act.

(3.) Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the allottees of stall Nos. 10, 1 3 and in meat market and Defendant No. 1 is a lessee of disputed stall, namely, fish stall No. 2 in fish market under Defendant No. 2-Municipal Corporation, Shimla. Under the respective licences issued by Defendant No. 2, the Plaintiffs are regulating the sale of meat in their respective stalis referred to above, whereas Defendant No. 1, earlier to November, 1989, used to sell fish in his stall but thereafter carried on the sale of meat therein till the filing of the suit.