SHAH - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21/01/1976, passed by the learned City Civil Judge, 8th Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No. 1809 of 1972. By the judgment and decree the learned Judge has held the notice dated 14/06/1972, issued by the appellant to the respondents under Sec. 54 of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act'), read with Rule 27 of the Bombay Town Planning Rules, 1955 (for short the Rules'), as violative of principles of natural justice and therefore, illegal and has restrained the appellant from implementing or otherwise executing the said notice.
(2.) The facts of the case may briefly be stated as follows :
(3.) The respondents filed the suit against the appellant-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, alleging that the suit land belonged to one Ranchhodlal Mohanlal Panchal from whom respondent No. 2 had taken the same on lease, and respondent No. 2 had put on that land a wooden structure, and he was running a factory therein from the year 1948, and thereafter respondent No. 2 sold his interest in the property alongwith the running business in the suit land to respondent No. 1 and since 1971, respondent No. 1 has become the direct tenant of the suit property. It is the case of the respondents that the appellant has served to both of them, a notice bearing No. 14/256, dated 14/06/1972, under the provisions of the Act, and has demanded the vacant possession of the land from them. The plaintiffs in the plaint, challenged that notice firstly on the ground that the appellant-Corporation had not served any notice under the Act, when the Town Planning Scheme was proposed to be approved and sanctioned though at that time respondent No. 1 was very much in the occupation of the suit land. Further according to the plaintiffs, the T. P. Scheme for the enforcement of which the suit notice dated 14/06/1972 came to be served to the respondents could not be framed because such schemes are required to be framed only for public purpose, and the T. P. Scheme in question did not involve any element of public purpose. Thirdly, according to the respondents, no show cause notice had ever been given by the appellant to them, and straight away the eviction notice has been issued by the appellant. On these averments in the main, the respondents challenged the suit notice and prayed for a declaration of illegality and untenability of the suit notice and about the said notice being without jurisdiction, and at least in excess of the jurisdiction of the appellant. They also prayed for an injunction restraining the appellant from executing and operating the said notice and further restraining the appellant from taking the possession of the suit land from them.;