JUDGMENT V.M. VELUMANI, J. 1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 26.12.2002 made in A.S. No. 205 of 2002 on the file of I Additional Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, partly modifying the judgment and Decree dated 22.10.2002 made in O.S. No. 249 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruneveli. 2. The defendant in the suit in O.S. No. 249 of 2000 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruneveli, is the appellant herein. The respondents filed the above suit for declaration that the suit schedule property is not a private market and for permanent injunction, restraining the appellant from interfering with their possession and administration of plaint schedule property. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 22.10.2002. On appeal in A.S. No. 205 of 2002, the first appellate Court confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court with regard to the relief of declaration and set aside the Judgment and Decree in respect of permanent injunction by granting injunction restraining the appellant from collecting licence fee till the Government takes a decision as to whether the suit property is a private market or not. 3. Against the Judgment and Decree of the first appellate Court, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 4. The case of the respondents/plaintiffs:- (i) The suit property belongs to respondents. The respondents' Sangam was started in the year 1973 for the development of its members. The suit property is rented out to his members, who are carrying business in the said premises. The members have obtained licence from the appellant for carrying on business by paying necessary licence fee and professional tax. The respondents are not carrying on any business in the suit property and they are not running any private market. (ii) While so, the appellant/defendant has alleged that the respondents/plaintiffs are running a private market in the suit premises and insisted that the respondents must obtain licence for running a private market. This stand of appellant is contrary to law. The individual wholesale and retail business carried on by the members of the respondents Sangam, will not amount to the respondents running a private market. (iii) Under those circumstances, the respondents filed O.S. No. 249 of 2000, for the reliefs stated above. 5. This stand of appellant is contrary to law. The individual wholesale and retail business carried on by the members of the respondents Sangam, will not amount to the respondents running a private market. (iii) Under those circumstances, the respondents filed O.S. No. 249 of 2000, for the reliefs stated above. 5. The case of the appellant/defendant:- (i) The respondents are running a private market without obtaining necessary licence from the appellant. The appellant came to know of private market, when one social worker issued a notice through Advocate about the respondents' Sangam running the private market. A committee was formed to verify the accounts of the respondents. On the report of the committee, the council of the appellant passed a Resolution No. 385, on 31.08.1999, fixing the licence fee. The President and Secretary of the respondents were called for a discussion. They did not come for discussion and refused to pay licence fee and filed the suit. The contention of the respondents that the suit property is not a private market is erroneous and the suit filed by them is abuse of process of Court. (ii) Based on these pleadings, the trial Court framed necessary issues. (iii) The respondents paid licence fee fixed by the appellant for one year under protest. The respondents examined one Selvakumar, Secretary of the Sangam as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A9. The appellant examined one Meenakshi Rajendran, Assistant Revenue Inspector of the appellant as D.W.1 and one Sundar Raman, Auditor, was examined as D.W.2, and marked documents Exs.P1 to P11. (iv) The trial Court considering the pleadings, evidence and arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents, by the Judgment and Decree, dated 22.10.2002, dismissed the suit. The respondents filed A.S. No. 205 of 2002 on the file of First Additional Sub-Judge, Tirunelveli, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 22.10.2002. (v) The first appellate Court framed the necessary points for consideration. The first appellate Court after considering the pleadings, evidence and the Judgment of the trial Court, partly allowed the appeal on 26.12.2002, granting injunction restraining the appellant from demanding and collecting licence fee from the respondents. The first appellate Court held that only the Government can decide the question as to whether the respondents are running a private market in the suit premises or not. 6. The first appellate Court held that only the Government can decide the question as to whether the respondents are running a private market in the suit premises or not. 6. Against the Judgment and Decree of the first appellate Court, dated 26.12.2002, the appellant has filed the present second appeal. 7. At the time of admission of the second appeal, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:- "(a) Whether it is legally necessary to refer and get declaration as Private Market upon which the council has no doubt at all? (b) Whether the appellant is not entitled to collect licence fee when the existence of the private market is brought to its notice? (c) Whether the individual permission obtained by members of the respondent Sangam will disentitle the appellant from collecting licence fees from the Private Market? (d) Whether the respondent is not estopped from claiming that it is not a private market after paying the licence fee to the appellant?" 8. The first question to be decided in this second appeal is whether the respondents are administering a private market in the plaint schedule property. 9. Section 381 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] applicable to the appellant, deals with establishing private market and the necessity to obtain licence to establish a private market and the necessity to obtain licence to establish a private market by the owner. Section 386 of the Act deals with powers of the Commissioner in dealing with the private market. Section 387 of the Act empowers the Commissioner to suspend or refuse to grant licence, if the owner fails to comply with the instructions given by the Commissioner. 10. The term Market is not defined in the Act. In the Judgment reported in Commissioner, Coimbatore Municipality vs. Chettimar Vinayagar Temple Committee, 1956 (II) MLJ 563 , this Court held that the ordinary meaning of market connotes a place where the public could go during particular times for purposes of buying and selling. 10. The term Market is not defined in the Act. In the Judgment reported in Commissioner, Coimbatore Municipality vs. Chettimar Vinayagar Temple Committee, 1956 (II) MLJ 563 , this Court held that the ordinary meaning of market connotes a place where the public could go during particular times for purposes of buying and selling. It is also held that the market had been defined in Act II of 1884, as follows:- "Any place ordinarily used for sale of meat, fish, fruits, vegetables or other perishable articles of food for human consumption which is at the passing of this Act is licensed market or which may hereafter be declared by the Municipal Council to be a Market." 11. It is an admitted fact that the members of the respondents, who are in occupation of plaint schedule premises, are carrying on wholesale and retail business in vegetables and fruits. From the nature of business carried on by the members of the respondents, it is clear that the respondents are running and administering a private market. 12. The learned trial Judge has appreciated the facts and Sections of the Act in proper perspective and held that the respondents are running a private market. As per the provisions of the Act, the respondents has to get licence and pay the necessary licence fee. The council of the appellant passed necessary resolutions in this regard. 13. The learned appellate Judge erred in holding that as there is a doubt as to whether the respondents are running a private market or not, the appellant must refer this issue to the Government under Section 393 of the Act, for a decision, which will be final. The definition of market in the Act II of 1884 and the decision reported in 1956 MLJ (II) 563 cited supra, make it clear that the respondents are running a private market in the petition premises. Therefore, there is no need for the appellant to refer the matter to the Government under Section 393 of the Act. The contention of the respondents that they need not get licence, as their members have obtained individual licences by paying necessary fees is untenable and unsustainable. The said contention is contrary to law and the rules and regulations. 14. Therefore, there is no need for the appellant to refer the matter to the Government under Section 393 of the Act. The contention of the respondents that they need not get licence, as their members have obtained individual licences by paying necessary fees is untenable and unsustainable. The said contention is contrary to law and the rules and regulations. 14. For the above reasons, the substantial questions of law are answered as follows:- (i) It is not necessary for the appellant to refer to the Government and get the declaration that the plaint schedule property is a private market. (ii) The appellant is entitled to collect licence fee from the respondents, when the existence of market is brought to its notice. (iii) The individual permission obtained by members of the respondents Sangam will not disentitle the appellant from collecting licence fees from the private market. (iv) The respondents paid licence fee under protest and in view of the same, the respondents are not estopped from claiming that the suit premises is not a private market. 15. In the result, the second appeal is allowed. The Judgment and Decree, dated 26.12.2002, made in A.S. No. 205 of 2002 of the first appellate Court is set aside in respect of partly allowing A.S. No. 205 of 2002 and the judgment and Decree dated 22.10.2002 made in O.S. No. 249 of 2000 of the trial Court, is restored. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.