Judgment.- This revision is against the judgment of the learned Additional Small Cause Judge of Tiruchirappalli, dismissing the suit brought by the petitioner for the recovery of licence fee collected from him by the respondent Municipal Council of Tiruchirappalli. The licence fee is claimed in respect of a sunshade, which stands erected on a portion of road margin abutting the petitioner’s house. In or about 1929 the petitioner is said to have erected the sunshade on his house, which encroached upon a portion of the public street which is known as the road margin over the drain. This portion was ultimately leased to the petitioner by the municipal council under terms and conditions which are contained in Exhibit B-1. Those conditions set out inter alia that three months’ advance rent should be paid on the first working day of every month; that immediately on the commencement of the lease an agreement should be executed on a 12 annas stamp paper and registered, that no permanent structure should be constructed on the site leased, and that the site should be returned within 24 hours whenever required by the Government, or the municipality; finally there is also a clause that this site should not be sublet under any circumstance. These terms make it clear that the portion of the road which vested in the municipality, has been leased out to the petitioner by Exhibit B-1, dated 30th July, 1929. By this lease it is obvious that the road portion leased in favour of the petitioner ceased to form part of the public street, as long as the lease subsisted, and when that portion has been leased to the petitioner under the terms and conditions contained in Exhibit B-1, it is open to the petitioner to enjoy that piece of land as long as he conforms to the conditions contained in Exhibit B-1. It must also be assumed that when the rent was fixed for the portion leased to the petitioner it was in consideration of the fact that the petitioner had already constructed a sunshade-over the plot of land leased to him. It must also be assumed that when the rent was fixed for the portion leased to the petitioner it was in consideration of the fact that the petitioner had already constructed a sunshade-over the plot of land leased to him. When the petitioner has been in enjoyment of the land and the sunshade over that land, the question now for consideration is whether in respect of the sunshade the municipal council is entitled to levy licence fee in addition to the rent that has been received in respect of the road margin ever since 1929. It is the case of the municipal council that under section 183(1) the municipal council is entitled to levy a licence fee for the superstructure over the portion that has already been leased to the petitioner. This position is contested by the petitioner and that is the reason why he has come with the suit to recover the licence fee collected from him by the municipality. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that in so far as the land which forms part of the land that has been originally assigned to him by way of lease on certain terms is concerned the municipality will not be entitled to interfere with the enjoyment of that portion, so long as he pays the rent and conforms to the other conditions of the lease. His further point is that if he contravenes any of the conditions or terms of the lease, under which he has been enjoying the land, it is open to the municipal council to terminate that leasee; but that under no circumstance, according to him, could the municipal council levy a licence fee in respect of the same land over which he has been paying rent, and therefore the levy of a licence fee in respect of the superstructure on the land for which he has been paying rent, and which is not an encroachment upon any further part of the road, cannot be the subject of any encroachment or any licence fee in respect thereof. I am inclined to take the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this case is correct. I am inclined to take the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this case is correct. The portion of the street, having already been leased to the petitioner on the terms and conditions contained in Exhibit B-1 and that portion having been already closed temporarily as a public street, it should be open to the petitioner to enjoy that portion of land as best as he can subject only to the conditions of the lease in his favour. It is fairly clear that this lease has been granted to the lessee by the municipal council only in exercise of the power vested in the municipal council under section 183(3). If the municipal council has already exercised that power in respect of the portion of the land forming part of the road" and has imposed the conditions for the occupation of the portion by the petitioner, it cannot again exercise further powers under the other sub-clauses in respect to the same land. In my view the power given under section 183(3) and other sub-clauses of the same section is exclusive of each other, and not that the right under each of the sub-clauses can be exercised all at the same time. If one power given under one sub-clause is exercised, the municipality cannot again exercise any power in respect of the same land under another sub-clause of the same section. In this view the finding of the learned Additional Small Cause Judge does not seem to be quite warranted. It cannot be said that when the municipality has temporarily closed the public street for use as a public street in the exercise of its right under section 183(3) the road is still a public street; in fact it has ceased to be a public street, when once it has been leased to the petitioner for his own occupation. No doubt the municipality can reclaim that portion by cancelling the lease and the municipality has the right to do so as per the clause contained in Exhibit B-1. The superstructure that has been put up is just a monkey top necessary for the enjoyment of the house and it cannot be said to be an encroachment upon the public street in view of the fact that that portion of the public street, over which this monkey top has been put up, has. The superstructure that has been put up is just a monkey top necessary for the enjoyment of the house and it cannot be said to be an encroachment upon the public street in view of the fact that that portion of the public street, over which this monkey top has been put up, has. already been leased and has, though temporarily ceased, to be part of the public street. If this monkey top encroaches beyond the portion of land that has been leased to the petitioner, then certainly there will be justification for the municipal council to claim a licence fee in respect of that under section 183(1) or (2). But as it is the monkey top put up by the petitioner does not seem to be an encroachment. Therefore it cannot be said that the monkey top put by the petitioner is an encroachment upon the public street, thereby entitling the municipality to exercise any of the rights vested in it under the other sub-clauses of section 183, District Municipalities Act. As to what the municipality will be entitled to in the present circumstance is that if the superstructure is considered a permanent building on land leased to the petitioner, it will be entitled to claim property tax in respect of it. If it is permanent structure, but falls within any of the temporary structures, which entitle the municipality to claim licence fee, then it will be open to the municipality to treat that as a temporary structure and claim licence fee under the relevant sections or rules made by the municipal council. But in so far as the present case is concerned the structure is merely a sunshade attached to the house, just above the plot of land, that has been leased to the petitioner and it cannot come under the category of temporary structures like a pandal, constructed with inflammable material so as to entitle the municipal council to levy a licence fee in respect of such structures. In such circumstances, I do not think that the municipality is legally entitled to claim any licence fee in respect of the monkey top unless and until it is proved that that structure makes a further encroachment upon a portion of the public street, which has not already been in the occupation of the lessee by right of assignment to him under the lease, the conditions for which are contained in Exhibit B.1. In this view the levy of the licence fee must be considered to be illegal, and the plaintiff will be entitled to recover that amount from the municipal council. The decree of the learned Additional Small Cause Judge will, therefore, be set aside and there will be a decree in favour of the lessee-petitioner, entitling him to recover that amount from the municipal council. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs both here and in the Court below. K.S. ----- Petition allowed.