MUNICIPAL BOARD Vs. SOORAJ MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil regular second appeal by the defendant Municipal Board, Baran, against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Baran,. dated the 10th october, 1955, decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for damages and for return of certain money which had been recovered by the defendant from the plaintiffs, in all amounting to Rs. 550/ -.

(2.) THE material facts leading up to this appeal may be shortly stated as follows : the plaintiffs carried on business at all material times in the name of Narainji harishanker in the town of Baran. It is common ground that they had been constructing a house in this town for about three or four years prior to the institution of this suit, and in that connection a Sanitary Inspector of thin municipality reported to the Board that the plaintiffs had collected certain building material on Khalsa land in front of and behind the house under construction, without the permission of the Board, and that rent was due from them for such occupation from the 15th of October, 1950 to 30th of December, 1950, amounting to Rs. 12-8-0, and that as the plaintiffs had so acted without the permission of the municipality they were liable to pay four times the rent, that is, a sum of Rs. 50/in all, and, therefore, the aforesaid sum be recovered from the plaintiffs. Thereupon a notice was issued by the defendant to the plaintiffs on 6th of January, 1951, to deposit this amount which the latter did not. Thereafter the defendant issued certain demand notices to the plaintiffs, but again without any avail. To the last notice of the Board in this connection dated the llth of November, 1951, the plaintiffs raised their objection Ex. 8 in which inter alia it was contended that the municipal Board had no authority in law to recover any rent from them, and further that if it thought that it had any legitimate claim, then the proper course for it was to file a suit in a competent court of law. It is important to point out at this place that somehow the plaintiffs had come to know that the defendant was contemplating the issue of a warrant of attachment against them and therefore, in their letter under reference the plainitffs made a special point that if the defendant was so dvised as to issue any warrant of attachment against them, then they would hold the defendant responsible for all the loss and consequences, and in particular tor the loss of reputation which was bound to be caused to them and for which they were determined to file a suit against the defendant in the competent court of law. This objection, was dated the 16th of lune, 1952. As things transpired, the defendant did issue a warrant of attachment against the plaintiffs Ex. A. 5. on the 1. 1th of July, 1952, When attachment was sought to be effected by the Sanitary Inspector of the defendant's goods in compliance with the warrant the plaintiffs paid the sum of Rs. 50/- under protest. Thereafter, they gave the usual statutory notice to the defendant, an. d eventually brought the present suit on the 12th of January, 1953, in which it was alleged that the action taken by the defendant against them was altogether unauthorised and mala fide; and, therefore, they claimed a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as damages for the loss of reputation caused to them by the illegal and mala fide attachment, and further claimed the refund of the sum of Rs. 50/- which had been paid by them to the board in compliance with the warrant of attachment.

(3.) THE defendant resisted the suit. Its main defence was that it had the power to realise the rent for the municipal land occupied by the plaintiffs without its permission in connection with the construction of their house and that the warrant of attachment issued by it was perfectly legal.