MALIK, CJ. :- These three second appeals can conveniently be decided by one judgment as the points raised in all the three cases are identical.

2. The respondents in these cases are owners of certain shops in the Municipal Area of Mau. These shops were built by the side of a Municipal drain which was 2 feet 4 inches wide and 6 feet and 4 inches deep. It was dangerous for the customers coming to the shops to pass over the drain and the shop-keepers, therefore, put stone slabs on the drain to cover it up and make a passage to their shops. The appellants issued notices to the shop-keepers claiming a tax on what they called "a projection". When the appellants threatened the shop-keepers that they would realise the amount by the issue of distress warrants, the shop-keepers filed three test suits out of which these three appeals have arisen claiming an injunction against the appellants on the ground that the levy of the tax was entirely illegal and beyond the competence of the appellant Board.

The suits were dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that they were barred by S. 164, U.P. Municipalities Act. On all other points the finding was in the plaintiffs favour. On appeals by the plaintiffs the lower appellate Court has decreed the suits and against the decrees passed by the lower appellate Court these second appeals were filed. These cases were referred to a Bench by a learned single Judge in the year 1947 but the hearing was stayed pending the decision of a Full Bench of a case in which the question of jurisdiction of the civil Courts to entertain such suits was raised. The decision of the Full Bench in - Municipal Board, Kanauj v. Manohar Lal, AIR 1951 All 867 (FB) (A) does not, however, deal with, the question of jurisdiction of civil Courts in such matters.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants has, urged that the Municipal Board was entitled to levy the tax under Ss. 209 and 293, Municipalities Act and under bye-law No. 8 of the Mau Notified. Area (now Municipal Area). Section 209 of the Act entitled a Municipal Board, subject to any rules made by the State Government, to give permission for construction of projections, and S. 293 gives the Municipal Board a right to charge fees for such projections. The lower appellate Court has held that no sanction having been obtained under S. 209, Municipalities Act to cover up the drain no fee could be levied for the same under S. 293 of the Act. It is not necessary for us to go into that question as the cases can be decided on another ground.

4. The tax or the fee is chargeable under R. 8 of the bye-law mentioned above which is in these terms :

"Projections over public streets or drains may be permitted only on the following conditions :

(i) that the owner or occupier shall daily remove all refuse from the land over which his projection extends and keep the land clean,

(ii) that the owner shall keep any open drain over which the projection extends in good working order and free from depression in which, liquid can stagnate;

(iii) that the owner or occupier shall, at any time, on demand vacate the surface of his projection for a period of not more than 6 hours to permit of municipal servants inspecting or repairing or cleaning any covered drain therein;

(iv) that the owner shall duly pay in advance the-fees prescribed by the next following bye-law."

5. The bye-law makes it clear that the fee to be charged is for a projection. The learned District Judge inspected the locality and in the inspection note he has noted that "the Municipal drain is in front of the plaintiffs shop towards the north. The plaintiff has only covered the drain by stone slabs and this covering is not in the shape of platform. The drain is 2 feet 4 inches wide and 6 feet and 4 inches deep."

The learned District Judge has held in the judgment under appeal as follows: "What the plaintiff has done is only that he has put stone slabs on the drain simply to enable customers to come to the shop. It is not a projec