AHMEDABAD MUNICIPALITY Vs. MANILAL CHHAGANLAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from a decision of Heaton J.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad praying for an injunction restraining the defendant, the Ahmedabad Municipality, from cutting off or removing the projection in dispute of his house. A decree was passed in the plaintiff s favour. On appeal to the District Judge the suit was dismissed with costs throughout. In second appeal the decree of the trial Court was restored.

(3.) The original owner of the suit house Tarbhovan Saochand had applied to the Municipality in 1897 for permission to make a projection (dakhli) and to put a tin sheet roof (Khapeda) over it. Permission was given on the 4th October 1897 to make a dakhli of two feet in breadth and to put a khapeda of one foot in breadth over it. It is suggested that the application was made and the permission was given under Section 33 of the Bombay District Municipal Act VI of 1873. Tarbhovan made the projection four feet five inches in breadth in contravention of the permission given. He was then prosecuted under Section 33, but the Magistrate found him not guilty. Thereupon ha applied to the Municipality to cancel the notice which had been served upon him to remove the projection, but the consideration of this application was adjourned as a Hub-Committee had been appointed to inquire into projections of that nature. It was not until the 23rd July 1914 that the Municipality issued the notice complained of on the plaintiff who had purchased the house from Hirachand Pitamber, the purchaser from Tarbhovan.