1. By this common judgement, I propose to dispose of Regular Second Appeals Nos. 2124 to 2138 of 1990, because similar points of law and fact are involved in all these appeals.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgements and decrees dated 28-7-1990 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, by which the appeals filed by the Municipality, Rampura Phul, defendant-appellant, were dismissed and the judgements and decrees dated 2-12-1989 passed by the trial Court (decreeing the suits of the plaintiffs-respondents) were upheld.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows :-

The plaintiffs-respondents had taken on lease shop on rent from the defendant-appellant and had been regularly making payments of the rent to the Municipal Committee, under receipts. It is alleged that the notices under Sections 80 and 81 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were served on the plaintiffs-respondents for recovery of arrears of rent. The plaintiffs-respondents replied to those notices but, without deciding their objections, the Municipal Committee started the recovery proceedings. It was further alleged by the plaintiffs-respondents t