MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, TIRUVARUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MR S K SUBBARAYALU NAIDU Vs. PRKANNUSWAMI PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in this case is the Municipal Council of Tiruvarur represented by its Chairman. On the 6 of February, 1922, the Municipal Council held an auction of the right to collect tolls in the Municipality for the year 1922-23 and to the 1 defendant was knocked down the right to collect tolls for Rs. 19,925. The printed notice under which the auction was, held required the successful bidder, within ten days of the acceptance of his bid, to make a deposit of two months rental as security and pay the amount due in twelve equal instalments, the security deposit being adjusted in the rental of the last two months. The notice further provided that for any amount due, the bidder should pay the interest at the rate of one anna per diem for every hundred rupees or fraction thereof. The 1 defendant bid for and accepted the lease of the toll-gates subject to the above conditions. On the, 28 of February, 1922, defendants 1 and 2 jointly put in a petition to the Chairman of the Municipal Council in which they represented that though the bid stood in the name of the 1 defendant, Kannuswami Pillai, it was really made on behalf of and for the benefit of both petitioners, namely, defendants 1 and 2. They further stated that they made a deposit on that day of Rs. 660-6-8 (by 1 defendant) and Rs. 1,660-6-8 (by 2nd defendant) and prayed that a muchilika might be taken from both of them jointly and both might be treated as lessees of the toll-gates. This petition was accepted and ordered by the Chairman accordingly. For some reasons or other no muchilika was executed by either of the parties though the tolls were being collected by the defendants, and it was not until the close of the official year 1922-23 that a notice was issued to the defendants to execute a muchilika. The defendants in the meantime had been complaining by petition's to the Council about certain grievances. The Council brings this suit for the balance of the lease amount due--Rs. 4,497-15-8 plus Rs. 105-10-0 balance of interest for irregular payments and Rs. 742-8-0 interest on the balance of the lease amount, making a total of Rs. 5,346-1-8. The 1 defendant pleaded that there was no completed contract between himself and the Municipality, that the plaintiffs were not entitled to appropriate, as they had done, the amount of Rs. 293-12-0 towards interest as it was not paid as such, that the plaintiffs cannot claim interest and the rate claimed is penal, that there was no wilful default on the part of the defendants to execute the muchilika and that (for certain reasons which are given) the defendants were subjected to loss on account of the negligence of the Municipality and they were further subjected to heavy loss owing to unforeseen heavy rains and high floods in the rivers and the consequent absence of traffic by roads. The 2nd defendant stated that as he did not bid at the auction be had incurred no liability to the Municipal Council, that he adopted the other defences raised by the 1 defendant and that, in any event, he cannot be made liable for the full amount claimed in the plaint and at the worst he can be made liable only for a moiety of the suit amount. The following issues were raised: 1. Whether there has been a complete contract between the parties as set out in the plaint, and, if not, whether the suit is sustainable?

(2.) Whether the suit is sustainable in the absence of a muchilika as required by Section 69 of the Madras District Municipalities Act?

(3.) What is the exact amount due from the 1 defendant?