( 1 ) THE respondent is the owner of the house Nos. 4-4-221 and 212 situate at Thanumal Road, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. After the purchase of the house by the respondent, during his absence, a portion of it was demolished by the staff of the Municipal Corporation. The respondent thereafter launched a criminal prosecution against he then Commissioner, Engineer. Assistant Engineer etc. , for the demolition of the house alleging that after granting permission to build as per the sanctioned plan, the new construction was pulled down in he respondents absence. He also filed a civil suit and a Writ in the High Court in connection with the demolition of a part of the suit house. Ultimately the matter was compromised where under the respondent was paid compensation and various proceedings were withdrawn.

( 2 ) THE house has a first storey with balcony, which balcony he proposed to extend overhanging the road below by three feet. The balcony was to be supported by four cement concrete pillars to be constructed on the lowest three front steps of the house. As per rules of the appellant-Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. the respondent submitted an application for construction of the balcony on 30/01/1965 accompanied by blue print sketch of the proposed construction. The respondent was informed by the Corporation by its letter dated 3-3-1965 (Ex. A-2) that permission for proposed construction of pillars and balcony was refused as the same came on the road. The respondent thereafter gave Ex. A-3 a registered notice dated 15-4-1965 to the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation. To this notice, the appellant by its Memo Ex. A-4 dated 31-5-1965 informed the respondent that permission for the proposed construction cannot be granted as intimated earlier by Ex. A-2. Hence the present suit by the respondent against the Corporation was filed on 23-12-1965.

( 3 ) THE respondent alleged that permission to construct pillars and balcony was refused without any body from the Municipal Corporation taking the measurement as per plan submitted by him. He averred that Thanumal Street is a private street and he proposed to raise the pillars in his site. His Western neighbour had obtained permission from the Corporation for putting up balcony overhanging the road and though this was brought to the notice of the Commissioner, no tangible action was taken in that regard. The street in front of the house of his western neighbour is only 14 feet in front of the respondents house is 18 feet in width. It was alleged that the action of the appellant-Corporation in refusing permission was mala fide. The respondent sought a declaration of his right to put up pillars and overhanging balcony and for a permanent injunction restraining the Corporation from interfering with his proposed construction and for refund of the licence fee collected by the Corporation with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of collection till refund.

( 4 ) THE respondent in his plaint further averred that even if Thanumal Street is considered a public street, the respondent is entitled to construct in view of the provisions of Section 437 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation Act. He therefore prayed for a declaration that permission for the proposed pillars and balcony must be deemed to have been sanctioned by the Corporation as per plan.

( 5 ) THE Corporation in its written statement denied all knowledge of the respondents title to the house in question and averred Thanumal Road is a public street. Permission to construct was refused to the respondent as the proposed construction was not in his site and was projecting over the street. Permission was rightly refused after spot inspection by the concerned Office who reported to the Town Planner. Allegations in the suit notice Ex. A-3 were denied and it was averred that the respondent has no cause of action. It was further averred that in any event the cause of actio