Ramdhani Lal vs Chairman of the Patna Municipality

Coutts, J.—The facts of this case are simple. The plaintiffs built a verandah to their house without the sanction of the Municipality. A notice u/s 238 of the Bengal Municipal Act was served on one Budhan Lal, son of the plaintiff Ramdhani who was in charge of the construction. The notice was not obeyed, action was taken u/s 180 by the Municipality and the verandah was demolished at the cost of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs then brought this suit for Rs. 1,000 damages. They contended that the notice was not properly served and that in any case it was bad as it was not served within fifteen days of the commencement of building.

It was found by the trial Court that although the notice was properly served it was not a valid notice as it was served more than fifteen days after the building had commenced and the suit was decreed for Rs. 125. On appeal to the District Judge this decree has been set aside on the ground that the fifteen days referred to in section 238, runs from the date of knowledge of building, which he finds was the 8th of June and as the notice was served on the 20th of June it was a valid notice.

The plaintiffs have appealed and the whole question for consideration is, from what time the period of fifteen days referred to, in section 238, should run. Section 238 of the Bengal Municipal Act is as follows:

"Should any person commence to erect or re-erect such house, not being a but, without giving notice......................the Commissioners may, by notice, to be delivered within fifteen days require the building to be altered or demolished as they may deem necessary."

There is absolutely nothing in the section to suggest that the period should run from the date on which the Commissioners have knowledge of the building and the words of the section seem to me to be open to no other construction than that the period should run from the date of the commencement of the erection of the building.

I would sec aside the decision of the learned District Judge and would decree this appeal with costs and restore the decree of the trial Court.

Macpherso, J.-

I agree.