1. This is a rule obtained by the plaintiff under Section 25, Prov. Sm. C.C. Act. The plaintiff petitioner is the Chairman of the Municipal Commissioners of Dacca. He instituted a suit against two ladies whereby he sought to realize a sum of Rs. 156-8-3 by way of rates and taxes. Defendant 1 contested the suit, the second did not. The defence which the learned Munsif discussed was that a former Chairman of the Municipality remitted the taxes and rates. It is a common ground that there was an assessment and valuation of the defendant's premises as required by the Municipal Act. It is said that thereafter owing to the defendants' poverty the Commissioners remitted the levy of the rate under Section 106, Municipal Act. I am not even clear from the learned Munsif's judgment that he was prepared definitely to come to a finding of fact that the remission on which the defendant relied had actually been made. But for the purposes of this rule I will assume that the defendant satisfied him as to the alleged remission. To my mind the remission was no defence to the Municipality's claim because the taxes in respect of which the suit is brought are admittedly taxes in respect of periods long subsequent to the date of the alleged remission. As I read the Municipal Act the Commissioners have no power to remit payment of rates or taxes in future and any powers of remission exercised by them can only affect the demands that have fallen due at the date of such remission. Therefore I think that the finding of the Munsif was quite irrelevant and did not afford any answer to the plaintiff's claim. I have been somewhat exercised as to the proper order for me to make in view of the conclusion to which I have come. The plaintiff represents a public body and I should be adverse from any order which would have the effect of shutting out any defence which the defendant might hope to advance with any reasonable chance of success. But in the circumstances of this particular case the defendant has not succeeded in suggesting to me any defence which, if established, would afford an answer to the plaintiff's claim. It is said that no demand was made for the sum due but my attention has not been directed to any provisions of the Municipal Act which, to my mind, render a demand in circumstances like the present a condition precedent to suit at the instance of the Municipality. I therefore do not think that I should be doing the defendant any service whatever in remanding the case to the learned Munsif and such a course would only involve her in further expense. In the circumstances I feel I must set the order of the learned Munsif aside and decree the suit for the amount claimed.
2. Having regard to the nature of the suit and the position of the parties I make no order as to costs in this rule. There will however be a decree for costs in the suit so far as defendant 2 is concerned as she did not appear and contest the suit.