QUDRAT ULLAH Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD BAREILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This litigation, started in 1951, has lived long, although the main point on which the fate of the case rests is the construction of a contract between the Municipal Board, Bareilly (the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 1727 of 1968) and the Thekedar under it of the Municipal market, one Habibullah (the father of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1727 of 1968). The present appellant is the legal representative of the defendant and has himself filed an appeal (C.A. No. 1728 of 1968) where the Board is the sole respondent. Instant or early justice seems impossible without radical re-orientation and systematic changes in the judicial process, as these two appeals, which have survived two decades, sadly illustrate.

(2.) Now, a brief narration of the facts. Although the canvass has been spread out, the relevant dispute lies in a narrow compass, and can be resolved by a close look at the terms of Ex. Rs. 1' (substantially repeated in Ex. Rs. 4') and by applying settled rules wich tell off a lease from a license when the deed is ambiguous. It is unfortunate that legal drafting by the respondent's lawmen has left the key documents in a blurred state, so much so, the trial Judge and the learned Judges in appeal have had to diverge in their conclusions, and before us long arguments have been hopefully addressed to help us designate the contract with certitude a lease or license.

(3.) The defendant (the appellant's father) had for several years been collecting Rs. tahbazari' dues from the market in Patelganj under contracts from the Municipal Board, the last of which, according to the plaintiff, was executed on 19-11-1944 (Ex. Rs. 1'). The defendant's case (supra) is that on the expiration of the term of Ex.Rs. 1', a fresh contract dated 31-12-1947, Ex. Rs. 4' was entered into between the parties substantially repeating the same terms and conditions. On the basis that Ex.Rs. 4' had not materialised into a binding contract for want of Government approval, the plaintiff ineffectually demanded of the defendant, by notice Ex. Rs. 6' of 1951, to desist from realising the market dues and followed it up with a suit praying for many reliefs of which the crucial one runs thus: