( 1 ) THE sole and significant question which has surfaced in this Second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("code") is " whether the impugned notices given by Baroda Municipal Corporations under section 264 of the bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 ("bpmc Act") are legal and valid. "? A few relevant and meterial facts, may be suited, at the outset, so as to examine and appreciate the question paused before this Court. The appellant, Baroda Municipal Corporation, is the original defendant No. 1 in regular Civil Suit No. 628 of 1969, filed by the respondents, who are the original plaintiffs. For the convenience sake, they are, hereinafter, addressed to as they were impleaded in the suit. The plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit in the Civil Court, at Baroda, for perpetual injunction, contending that the impugned notices under Section 264 of the BPMC Act, produced, at ex. 58 to 61, by the Baroda Municipal Corporation, dated 19. 4. 1969, are illegal and, therefore, should be declared as void. The plaintiffs are the four tenants in respect of residential property situated opposite Raopura Electric Substation, at Baroda, and bearing Municipal Census No. RA-558. It is the ground floor, where original plaintiff No. 4 is a tenant. On the first floor, plaintiffs No. 1, 2 and 3 are occupying different portions. Similarly, plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 are also occupying different portions of the second floor.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs, inter alia, contended that, defendant No. 2 is the owner of the said property and their landlord. He in collusion with defendant No. 1, Baroda Municipal corporation, got the impugned notices issued. The plaintiffs contended that they are old tenants and the landlord (defendant No. 2) served them with notices for ejectment from the rented premises and having failed in his attempt, got the impugned notices issued under section 264 of the BPMC Act, in collusion with the Baroda Municipal Corporation. The contents of the impugned notices are absolutely false and illegal, as contended by the plaintiffs. According to the impugned notices, under Section 264 of the BPMC Act, the baroda Municipal Corporation (defendant No. 1) directed the plaintiffs-tanants to vacate the suit premises on the ground that the northern wall of the suit premises and the wooden afters (Pdhias and pathias) of the First and Second floor and the Veranda portion of the said house are decayed and in a dilapidated condition, and are likely to fall at any time. The plaintiffs questioning the legality and validity of the impugned notices filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the Baroda Municipal Corporation from pulling down the impugned structure alleged to be dangerous.

( 3 ) THE defendants appared and resisted the suit by filling separate written statements, traversing all the allegations levelled in the plaint and defending the action of the Baroda municipal Corporation, in issuing the impugned notices under Section 264 of the BPMC act. The allegations of mala-fide and collusion between the defendants were denied. They also contended that the impugned notices were issued, as the Land and Estate Officer was satisfied that, in view of the very old age of the building, us it was a decayed and dilapidated condition and required immediate demolition. Thus, the action proposed to be taken under Section 264 of the BPMC Act was defended.

( 4 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances, the issues came to be settled at Ex. 32. The trial Court, on appreciation of the facts and circumstances and the evidence, on record, was pleased to dismiss the suit, on 31st March, 1978. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the original plaintiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 301 of 1978, in the District Court, at Baroda, which was allowed. Thus, the suit was decreed, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, by the Appellate court, on 29. 4. 1981. Hence, this Second Appeal,