MIABHOY, C. J. :- These two petitions raise common questions of law and some common questions of fact. Each of the petitions has a common petitioner, and a set of common respondents. Therefore, both the petitions were heard together and a common argument was addressed by learned counsel on both sides. With their consent, we are writing this common judgement which would dispose of both the petitions.

2. The two petitions challenge the validity of a house tax imposed by the Broach Borough Municipality and embody prayers for issuance of a writ of mandamus, a direction or an order for restraining respondents, their agents and servants from enforcing the tax and the provisions of law under which the tax is sought to be levied from petitioner.

3. The facts which are required to be stated to dispose of the two petitions are as follows : In both the petitions, the common petitioner is Prathvi Cotton Mills Ltd., a company registered under the Indian Companies Act VII of 1913 (hereinafter called petitioner simplicity). In Special Civil Application No. 846 of 1963, it is the sole petitioner.

The second petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 765 of 1964 is one Laxminivas B. Rungta,