LAWS(PVC)-1943-3-22

S V MANDLIK Vs. BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY

Decided On March 18, 1943
S V MANDLIK Appellant
V/S
BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against a decree of the First Class Subordinate; Judge, Jalgaon, dismissing a suit brought by the petitioner, the principal officer of the Jalgaon Electric Supply Company, Ltd., against the Borough Municipality of Jalgaon, The suit was to recover a sum of Rs. 32-10-0 due to the Jalgaon Electric Supply Company for the balances remaining due on two bills for electricity supplied in December, 1940, and January, 1941. The greater portion of the amount of each bill was paid by the Municipality but a sum of Rs. 18-10-6 remained unpaid for the bill of December, 1940, and a sum of Rs. 13-12-6 remained unpaid for the bill of January, 1941, making in all Rs. 32-7-0. The Electric Company gave notice to the Municipality on January 8, 1941, calling upon it to pay the amount. When this notice was not complied with another notice was given on March 5, 1941, and that also not being complied with, a suit was filed on March 29, 1941, for the recovery of Rs. 32-7-0, the amount of the bills, and Re. 0-3-0 by way of interest. On March 31, 1941, two days after the suit was filed, the Municipality paid up the amount of arrears, Rs. 32-7-0, but did not pay the three annas for interest. Thereafter on July 18, 1941, the Municipality filed its written statement in which inter alia it contended that the suit was bad for want of notice under Section 206 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act. The only question in dispute was, therefore, as to the liability of the Municipality to pay three annas for interest and costs of the suit.

(2.) The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that notice under Section 206 was necessary and such notice had not been given. The plaintiff has come in revision. Although the amount involved is extremely Small, the application has been admitted because a question of principle is involved which is likely to recur constantly.

(3.) Section 206 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, provides that : No person shall commence any suit against any municipality or against any officer or servant of a municipality or any person acting under the orders of a municipality for anything done or purporting to have been done in pursuance of this Act, without giving such municipality, officer, servant or person two months previous notice in writing of the intended suit and of the cause thereof, nor after six months from the date of the act complained of. This section is in exactly the same words as the corresponding Section 167 of the Bombay District Municipal Act of 1901. The provisions of Section 48 of the Bombay District Municipal Act II of 1884, which was in force prior to the introduction of the Bombay District Municipal Act of 1901, were in similar terms. Similar provisions exist also in Section 527 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act III of 1888. These sections of the different Municipal Acts have been interpreted in a long series of decisions of our Court and in all of them the view taken has been that they do not apply to suits based on contracts, and that in the case of such suits notice is not necessary.