Decided on April 04,1962

Gajanan Marotrao Balpande Appellant
Municipal Commissioner Of The City Of Nagpur Corporation Respondents


SHAH,J. - (1.)This petition is filed by a dealer in potteries against an order of the Municipal Commissioner of the City of Nagpur Corporation, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected. The appeal was directed against a bill dated September 21, I960, served by the Market Department of the Corporation on the petitioner claiming an amount of Its. 1,100 for the period June 1, 3960 to March 31, 1961, in respect of a stall, which the petitioner had taken on, licence from the Corporation in one of the city markets. It was urged before the Municipal Commissioner that the petitioner had vacated the stall on April 1, 1960, and that, accordingly, the Corporation had taken possession thereof from him as on that date and that, therefore, he was not liable to pay any amount for any period subsequent to that date.
(2.)IT appears that the petitioner took block No. 11 of Itwari chawl in an open auction on a monthly rent of Its. 158 and in regard thereto he executed an agreement in favour of the Corporation. The agreement was one of licence and the period of the licence was from February y, 1960 to March 31, 1961. Clause 2 of the licence provided as follows: The period of licence shall be from 3 -2 -60 to 31 -3 -61. No licence holder shall leave the shop before the expiry of the period. Should he leave the shop, he shall have no right to demand the advance paid money. The man leaving the shop shall have to compensate the Corporation for the loss that the Corporation may suffer.
It appears that the petitioner, shortly after he took the premises on licence, did not desire to continue the licence, and accordingly, he vacated the stall and handed it over to the Corporation on April 1, I960. The Corporation thereafter put the stall to auction on as many as four occasions, namely, on April 21, 1960, May 28, 1960, June 19, 1960, and July 29, 1960, and it was only on the last occasion that the Corporation could succeed in getting some bids for the stall. The highest bid that the Corporation, however, received was only of Rs. 80. The person who offered that bid was eventually put in possession as from October 1, 1960, and the Corporation started recovering the rent of Its. 80 only from that person. The Corporation claimed that by reason of the petitioner having committed a breach of the terms of the licence and abandoned the possession of the premises while the licence was in force, it had sustained a total loss of 1,100 and presented a bill to the petitioner for the payment of that, amount. It wan against that bill that, the petitioner filed the appeal to the Municipal Commissioner as stated above. The Municipal Commissioner dismissed that appeal. It is against that order of dismissal that the petitioner has filed the present petition to this Court.

(3.)IN support of this petition, it was urged by Mr. Mandlekar on behalf of the petitioner that the claim made by the Corporation against his client could not he recoverable under any of the provisions of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 (No. II of 1950), and the only way in which the amount claimed by the Corporation could be recovered was by way of a civil suit. Ho invited our attention to Section 154 of the Act and urged that the amount sought to be recovered on account of compensation by the Corporation from his client was neither an amount 'declared by or under the provisions of this Act to be recoverable.. or payable on account of any tax'. Mr. Hajarnavis, on the other hand, invited our attention to Section 374 of the Act and urged that the claim of the Corporation fell within the purview of that section and that, accordingly, the Corporation was entitled to recover that amount by attachment and sale of the petitioner's property as provided in the Act itself.

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