Decided on August 17,1981

Subramanya Guptha K.S. Appellant
Town Mun. Council, Madhugiri Respondents


M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J. - (1.) This second appeal is disposed of by the following order at the stage of admission after notice to respondent. Counsel for parties have been heard. The parties to this appeal will be referred to by the rank and position assigned to them in the trial Court.
(2.) The appellant was plaintiff in the Court of the Munsiff, Mudhugiri in 0. S. No. 230/1976. The suit was for an injunction restraining the defendant-Town Municipal Council. Madhugiri from interfering with his peaceful Possession of the suit schedule shop premises in which he was carrying on his business as lessee of the Town Municipal Council The suit came to be dismissed mainly on two grounds, that the municipality had power under S. 73 of the Karnataka Town Municipalities Act, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and if the Municipality wanted to reconstruct the shop premises in the occupation of the plaintiff, it had power to do so after demolishing the shop premises occupied by the plaintiff and that no suit could be filed against the Municipality having regard to the provisions contained in S 283 read with S :106 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed R.A No 14/1981 in the Court or the Civil Judge, Madhugiri. That appeal come to be dismissed. Therefore, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.
(3.) When it was pointed out to the learned Counsel :appearing for the defendant-Town Municipal Council that whatever action the Municipality may take in order to develop its property, it cannot do so by resorting to the same without first getting vacant possession of the premises admittedly leased out to the plaintiff which it claimed had come to an end. Whether S. 73 of the Act gives special protection to the Municipality or Municipal Council in its contractual relations with its tenants or in respect (I its powers over its property arising out of a contract of sale or lease is a matter which requires a detailed examination. Similarly, the ambit and scope of S. 283 read with S. 306 of the Act also require to be examined as to what are the suits which are barred against the Municipality. But one can confidently say without further examination that they do not preclude suits for injunction against the Municipality, when the Municipality prima facie acts without the authority of law A perusal of sub-sec. (2) of S 284 of the Act clearly supports the view I have expressed above. Whether injunction, should he grunted or not in a particular case will depend on facts pleaded and proved in that particular case. But it does not mean that a suit against the Municipality is not to be filed at all, as the same S 284 of the Act provides for notice being issued before a suit being filed against the Municipality.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.