JUDGMENT 1. - This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment. 2. There is a Tehbazari plot No. 9 on Dharam Shala Road, Ganga Nagar. It was allotted by the Municipal Council, Ganga Nagar to the plaintiff firm at a ground rent of Rs. 8.20 paise per month some 15 years before the filing of the suit. The plaintiff put up a stall over it incurring an expenditure of about Rs. 3000/-. He let out on 7.9.58 the stall inclusive of the land underneath to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. The plaintiff cancelled the defendant's tenancy by a notice and on 24.10.64 he filed the present suit in the court of the Munsiff Ganga Nagar. The eviction was sought on the ground that the defendant had committed three defaults within a period of 18 months to two each and further arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 13000/- were outstanding against the defendant. The defendant resisted the suit. He denied that he had taken the stall on a rent of Rs. 50/- per month. He further pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled to sublet a plot or the stall as, according to the terms of the allotment, so subletting is permissible. The suit came to be tried by the learned Civil Judge, Ganga Nagar consequent to its transfer from the court of the Munsiff. It transpired during the hearing that on 23.3.66 the Municipal Board had cancelled the plaintiff's allotment (vide Ex. A/3). The learned Civil Judge framed a number of issues and after recording evidence decreed the suit both for ejectment as well as for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 13000/-. He further decreed the claim for future rent from 22.3.66 at the rate of Rs. 39.80 paise per month. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff. 3. Aggrieved by the decree of the learned Civil Judge the defendant went up in appeal to the court of the District Judge, Ganga Nagar. The plaintiff filed his cross objections to the extent the claim for future rent had been reduced from Rs. 50/- to Rs. 39.80 paise. The learned District Judge partly allowed the appeal by his judgement dated 11.10.66. He dismissed the suit for eviction while maintaining the decree for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1300/-. The plaintiff filed his cross objections to the extent the claim for future rent had been reduced from Rs. 50/- to Rs. 39.80 paise. The learned District Judge partly allowed the appeal by his judgement dated 11.10.66. He dismissed the suit for eviction while maintaining the decree for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1300/-. The learned District Judge, however, ordered future rent which he characterised as mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month from 23.3.65. The learned District Judge further decreed that the plaintiff shall be entitled to remove the material of the stall. Rent at Rs. 50/- per month was allowed to the plaintiff from 24.10.64 to 23.3.65. 4. Aggrieved by this appellate decree the defendant has come up in second appeal to this Court. The plaintiff has filed a cross objection regarding the claim for future rent or means profits. He also prayed for ejectment of the defendant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The order of the Municipal Board Ex. A/3 shows that the Chairman ordered the cancellation of the allotment in the plaintiff's favour on the ground that he had sublet the plot in contravention of the terms of allotment. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff wanted to raise an argument that the Chairman was not empowered to cancel the allotment on his own and it could be done by the Municipal Board itself after hearing the plaintiff. Under section 67 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, a Chairman could exercise the executive functions of the Board, unless on any matter a restriction has been imposed on the exercise of such functions by him by virtue of section 78 or by any rules. This has been laid down in Ratanal v. State, 1963 RLW 634 and Swaroop Ram v. State, 1963 RLW 434 . The defendant had taken this plea in his written statement, but the plaintiff had not raised the contention in the courts below that the order of the Chairman was bad, because the plaintiff has not been heard before the cancellation of the allotment. In the circumstances I find myself unable to accept the contention that the order cancelling the allotment in the plaintiff's favour is invalid on the ground of there being lack of hearing. In the circumstances I find myself unable to accept the contention that the order cancelling the allotment in the plaintiff's favour is invalid on the ground of there being lack of hearing. That being so, the plaintiff cannot be awarded a decree for eviction after the cancellation of the allotment in favour of the plaintiff. Further the defendant is not entitled to challenge the award of decree to the extent of Rs. 1300/- for the arrears of rent till the filing of the suit. The courts below had concurrently held against the defendant regarding the arrears of rent. The lower appellate court has allowed future rent or mesne profits to the plaintiff from 24.10.64 till 23.3.65 amounting to Rs. 275/-. Before this date there was certainly a subsisting allotment in favour of the plaintiff and on party of reasoning the plaintiff was entitled to claim arrears of rent upto 22.3.65 at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. 6. The next question is at what rate, if any , future rent after 23.3.65 i.e. from 23.3.65 has to be allowed to the plaintiff. It is common ground that after the cancellation of the allotment in favour of the plaintiff the plot No. 9 had been allotted by the Municipal Board to the defendant & he had been paying the ground rent to the Municipal Board at Rs. 10.20 per month. The contention of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant is that inas much as the defendant became the lessee directly from the Municipal Board the plaintiff is not entitled to recover rent or mesne profits from the defendant for the period subsequent to 22.3.65. the argument is, in my view, without force. It is true, the land had been obtained by the defendant from the Municipal Board, but it cannot be gainsaid that the defendant had been making use of the stall put up by the plaintiff. When the stall was let out by the plaintiff to the defendant Rs. 50/- per month was fixed as rent and this took note of the ground rent as well as the use of the stall. The ground rent was being paid by the defendant after 22.3.65 to the Municipal Board and, therefore, the defendant is entitled to an allowance for it. 50/- per month was fixed as rent and this took note of the ground rent as well as the use of the stall. The ground rent was being paid by the defendant after 22.3.65 to the Municipal Board and, therefore, the defendant is entitled to an allowance for it. The plaintiff was held entitled to remove the material of the stall, but it will not be open to the plaintiff to remove it by his own hands or by employing an agency, unless the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the rent for the defendant Rs. 50/- minus Rs. 10.20 paise, that is Rs. 39.80 for the use and occupation of the stall till the defendant himself removes and makes over the structure to the plaintiff. 7. In the result, therefore, I dismiss the defendant's appeal, but allow the plaintiff's cross objection and order that besides Rs. 1300/- decreed upto the filing of the suit the plaintiff shall get Rs. 275/- as rent for the period from 9.10.64 to 22.3.65 and thereafter from 23.3.65 the plaintiff shall get the compensation or mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 39.80 paise per month for the use and occupation of the stall till the defendant himself removes the structure or the material of the stall end makes it over to the plaintiff. The amount for the period 23.3.1965 till the end of the present month works out Rs. 4616.80 paise. The plaintiff shall thus get in all Rs. 6191.80 paise from the defendant together with costs. The plaintiff shall make good the deficiency in court fees for the additional amount decreed. The defendant shall continue to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 39.80 paise per month to the plaintiff till the defendant dismantles the stall and makes over its structure or material to the plaintiff. The decree is modified accordingly. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants orally prayed for grant of leave to appeal under section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, but looking to the circumstances of the case leave to appeal is refused. *******