THIMMARAYAPPA Vs. NARAYANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the plaintiff in the Court of the First Munsif of Bangalore. He brought a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the Bangalore City Municipality, either by itself or through its servants from issuing permits or making leases in favour of anybody else to vend fruits in the Kalasipalyam Bus stand, Bangalore City, so long as the lease in his favour subsisted and was not otherwise legally terminated. The Municipality had, it was alleged, granted a lease in his favour by an agreement dated 9-12-1948 conferring upon him the sole and exclusive right to vend fruits in the entire area known as Kalasipalyam Bus Stand on a monthly rental of Rs. 32/-; notwithstanding that grant the Municipality is said to have given licences to other people to similarly vend fruits in that area before the arrangement in his own favour was property terminated. That suit was filed on 26-9-1949 but subsequently on 6-3-1950 the plaintiff filed with the permission of the Court an amended plaint. As a result of that amendment defendants two to seven, who had been issued permits by the Municipality, were impleaded on the ground that from and after 20-9-1949 the Market Superintendent, Bangalore City, had under instructions from the Bangalore City Municipality, issued permits in favour of defendants two to seven. The Municipality (Defendant one) filed a written statement which cannot be said to be either very clear or put in proper legal language. But in the main the plea was that the Municipality had put. an end to the arrangement with the Plaintiff with effect from. 1-6-49 and he had been duly notified about it and could have no grievance. Defendant one further denied the rights of the Plaintiff to the permanent injunction. The other defendants also contested the suit. They pleaded that there was no monopoly given to the plaintiff by Defendant one. There was no valid lease at all in favour of the Plaintiff as the Municipal Council had not sanctioned any such lease in favour of the plaintiff and the agreement purporting to grant such a lease could not bind defendant one. Defendant one was there-fore competent to permit anyone else to vend articles in the said stand. The arrangement was merely in the nature of a permission or licence and was not a lease and was terminable at will and had been properly terminated. The suit as brought was not maintainable and an injunction could not be issued in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) The learned Munsiff, who tried the suit, held that the arrangement entered into between the plaintiff and defendant one under Ex. III was not beyond what was decided to be granted by the Municipal Council and that it was in the nature, of a lease and not merely a licence. That arrangement had not been validly terminated and the action of defendant one in issuing permits to others during the currency of that arrangement infringed the lease-hold rights of the plaintiff. He accordingly made a decree in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for. Strangely the Municipality did not appeal against this judgment; and it is explained by the present counsel for the Municipality that there was some delay in getting copies and that the Municipality later on felt that as the other defendants had appealed, the Municipality also could take advantage of the same. Defendants two to seven however, preferred an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Bangalore, and the ' Municipality which by then came to be the Corporation of the City of Bangalore was impleaded as Respondent 2. The appeal came to be heard by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, who reversed the Munsiffs decision and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The plaintiff has come up in Second Appeal.

(3.) The appeal has been argued fully and at considerable length by Counsel who appeared for the appellant as well as for the Corporation and for defendants 2 to 7. I do not see any reason, however, to interfere with the Judgment of the lower Appellate Court.