JUDGMENT Hamilton, J. - This is a second appeal by the Notified Area Committee of Deoria Defendant in a suit which was brought by Suka Dass and another, joint owners of certain houses within the Notified Area of Deoria. What gave rise to this suit was that cerain bye-laws were passed by the Notified Area Committee and on the strength of those bye-laws a demand was made on the Plaintiffs for a certain sum as projection fees for the period from September 1937 to March 1941. Projection, fees meant fees payable for encroachments made by the Plaintiffs on land and drains which vested in the Notified Area Committee. It was alleged in the plaint that these projections had been erected before the 23rd August 1937, the date on which the bye-laws came into force, and it was further stated that these projections had been made with the permission of the Notified Area Committee and so no fees could be levied. There were also allegations that the bye laws were ultra vires and that they could not have retrospective effect. The first Court found that these projections over tend and drains which vested in the Notified Area had been made without permission at dates earlier than the date on. which the bye-laws came into force but that from the date, that the bye laws came into force fees could be realised for already, existing projections as well as for projections which might be made after the bye-laws came into force. The lower appellate Court agreed with all the findings of the trial Court except that it held that the bye laws, read together showed that there was no intention to levy fees on projections which were already in existence on the 23rd August 1937. We might paraphrase this by saying that the lower appellate Court found that for projections already in existence no fees had been fixed and consquently no sum could be realised. We will here refer, to the relevant sections of the Municipalities Act which by a notification of the Provincial Government have been extended to Notified Areas. We might paraphrase this by saying that the lower appellate Court found that for projections already in existence no fees had been fixed and consquently no sum could be realised. We will here refer, to the relevant sections of the Municipalities Act which by a notification of the Provincial Government have been extended to Notified Areas. Section 293 empowers a Notified Area Committee to charge fees fixed by bye-law or by public auction or by agreement, for the use or occupation (otherwise than under a lease) of any immovable property vested in, or entrusted to the management of the board, including any public street or place of which it allows the use or occupation whether by allowing a projection thereon or otherwise. 2. In our opinion the meaning of this section is plain. If certain immovable property is vested in the committee or is entrusted to its management the Committee may charge fees the amount of which will be settled either by an entry in the bye laws or by the holding of a public auction by agreement entered into by the Notified Area Committee and the person who has used and occupied property over which he had no right of possession by title because it either vested in the Commitee or was entrusted to the management of the Committee. To make it plain that fees could be levied even when permission had been applied for use or occupation and had been granted, the words. including any public street or place of which it allows the use or occupation whether by allowing a projection thereon or otherwise. 3. Were inserted in the section. The fact that these words there occur did not limit the power of the Notified Area Committee to charge fees for the use or occupation of any part of any public street or place when no permission had been sought from the Committee and no permission had been granted. 3. Were inserted in the section. The fact that these words there occur did not limit the power of the Notified Area Committee to charge fees for the use or occupation of any part of any public street or place when no permission had been sought from the Committee and no permission had been granted. To exercise the powers of the Committee u/s 293, when fees were not fixed by public auction or by agreement, the Committee u/s 298 could make bye-laws and if required by the Local Government had to make bye-laws, consistent with the Act for various purpose incuding the furtherance of municipal administration under this Act As Section 298 is a section of the Municipalities Act which has been extended to a Notified Area, municipal administration, means administration of the Notified Area and no of the Municipality. Under para (1) of S. 298 the Committee had the power to make certain bye-laws described in List I, which immediately follows the Section, built should be noticed that this was without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by Sub-section (1). In this List I there is sub-division E which is headed 'streets' and which among other things, deals with conditions on which permission may be given for projections over streets and drains. There is then another heading 'J. Miscellaneous' which has a Sub-section (d) which runs as follows: fixing any charges or fees, or any scale of charges or fees to be paid for any municipal service or undertaking, or to be paid u/s 393 (1) or Section 994 of the act, and prescribing the times at which such charges or fees shall be payable, and designating the persons authorised to receive payment thereof; 4. While clause E refers to S, 209 which deal's with sanctions of projections over streets, clause J refers back to S. 293, which empowers a Committee to charge fees for the use or occupation of immovable property vested in the Committee. It seems clear to us that S 293 gives the Commitee power to charge fees when use or occupation of what we may conveniently term Notified Area land has taken place and it is immaterial Whether such use or occupation has taken place one day Or a month or a year or any other period, provided of course the land is still vested in the Notified Area Committee. We can see,nothing inequitable in this, for a person, who has made projections on land which does not belong to him but vests in the Committee, has no right to retain possession free and, if he does not like the amount of fees, fixed, it is always open to him to remove the projections by which time, if he does so, he will have had perhaps for a considerable period of time the free use of the Notified Area land. The learned Civil Judge who decreed the Plaintiffs' suit setting aside the decision of the trial Court, did not as far as we can see, doubt the power of the Committee to levy fees for already existing projections but held on a perusal of the by-laws that the Committee had only fixed lees (or projections which might be made after that the by laws had come into force and not for already existing ones. The byelaws framed by the Committee purported to be under head E, sub-head (c) and head J, Sub head (d) of S. We have already pointed, out the difference between head E, and head J. that isto(sic) say that head E, referred to future projections ,and head J to all projections whether already existing or not and whether allowed or not allowed by the Notified Area Committee. The learned. Judge on examining the bye-laws found that almost all of them certainly referred to future projections, that is to say were under head E and there is no doubt that this view was correct There remained, however, bye-law 9 to be construed. That reads as follows: Subject to bye law No. 10 the annual fees for projection shall be as shown in the accompanying schedule. 5. The reference to bye-law 10 is immaterial as it is to the effect that when there are two or more projections on the same storey covering the same ground two separate fees shall not be payable. The language of bye-law 9 is general and there is nothing in this bye-law to indicate that there was any intention to fix fees for projections made after the bye-law came into force and not before The only reason for which the learned Civil Judge held that this bye law only applied to future projections was that other bye-laws such as for instance Nos. 2 to 7, could only apply to projections made after that the bye-laws came into force. The learned Judge did not realise that not all the bye-laws were under head E, Sub head (c) and that there must, have been at least one under head J sub-head (d) because this was clearly stated in the heading of these byelaws which immediately preceded No, 1 bye law. On the general wording of bye-law No. 9 it seems clear to us that this bye law was a bye-law under head J, sub head (d) of S. 298 and not a bye-law under head E, sub-head (c) There was nothing illegal or ultra vires in making at one and the same time some bye-laws under head E and some under head J and numbering them serially. The fact that certain other bye-laws such as Nos. 2 to 7 only related to future projections is no help for the construction of bye-law No 9. Bye-law No 8 must be held to refer both to previously existing and to future projection because the Notified Area Committee u/s 293 had the power to levy fees on both classes of projections. 6. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has urged that a person who wants to build a projection after the bye-law has come into force may be taken to have agreed to pay the requisite fees. Doubtless a person who makes a projection before there are bye-laws does not know what fees if any he will be called upon to pay even when bye-laws are made, but, if a person encroaches on property that belongs to another or to others and not to himself, it is recognised that he is liable to pay for use or occupation. In certain cases the amount which he will have to pay has to be determined by the Court but in certain cases the statute Itself fixes the amount as in the case before us and we can see nothing inequitable in the Notified Area Committee making a charge for past use and occupation of its land and Section 293 makes it quite clear that the Committee can levy fee's and the Act also provides for the filing of the fees. 7. For reasons that we have given above, we must set aside the decision of the learned additional Civil Judge decreeing the suit. 7. For reasons that we have given above, we must set aside the decision of the learned additional Civil Judge decreeing the suit. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the. decree of the lower appellate Court and dismiss the spit with, costs.