MAHABIR SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF ARRAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit filed by the Commissioners of. Arrah Municipality (hereinafter called 'the Municipality') for realisation of three years license fee, at the rate of Rs. 45/- per year, has been decreed with costs on contest against defendants 1 and 2 and ex parte against defendant No. 3, by the learned Small Cause Court Judge. The former two have filed this application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. On the findings rather on the admitted position, no license was taken out by any of the defendants for carrying on the business in any of the years in respect of which the license fee was claimed. That being so, no license fee could be charged by the Municipality from any of the persons and no decree could be passed for it against any of the defendants in favour of the Municipality. It may well be that the persons carrying on the business without license were liable to be prosecuted under the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act 1922 or it may be that the Municipality has the right to close that business. That is not a matter which falls for my decision in this Civil revision. But what is clear to me is that when the defendants did not take out a license as required by Section 276 of the Municipal Act aforesaid, they were not liable, to pay any license fee. A bench of this Court has held in Commissioner, Purnea Municipality v. Faleh Chand Ranka I.L.R. 36 Pat. 989 that where a platform is constructed without obtaining a license for the same, the Municipality was not entitled to the licence fee claimed. The ratio of the decision applies on all fours to the facts of the instant case.

(2.) Is the result, I allow the application in revision, set aside the decision and decree of the court below. Since the decree cannot be divisible, it is set aside as a whole. On the facts and circumstances of this case, I shall direct the parties to bear their own costs throughout.