Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C J - (1.)By an order dated the 10 August, 1931, the Provincial Government superseded the Madtira Municipal Council and appointed a Special Officer to carry out the functions of the Council for a period of one year from the 14 August, 1931. This order was passed under the provisions of Section 411(1) of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920. On the 7 June, 1932, the Special Officer caused a building belonging to the appellant to be demolished. Thereupon the appellant filed in the Court of the District Munsif, Madura Town, the suit out of which this appeal arises of the recovery of damages. The suit was subsequently transferred for hearing to the Court of the District Munsif, Madura Taluk, whtf held that the appellant's contention was well founded and gave him a decree for Rs. 100 with costs. The respondent council appealed to the Subordinate Judge of Madura, who reversed the decree of the District Munsif on the ground that the Special Officer had acted within the law. The appellant now appeals to this Court and asks for the. restoration of the decree of the Court of the District Munsif.
(2.)Before referring to the sections of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920, which have application, it will be convenient to state the facts. On the 25 June, 1931, the appellant applied to the couneil for sanction to erect a building for the purpose of storing therein oil manufactured by him and submitted plans, as was required by the building regulations. On the 17 July the Sanitary Inspector reported that he had no objection to the erection of the building, but-without waiting for the sanction of the Executive Engineer the appellant commenced to build and completed the work. On the 20 July, 1931, the Executive Engineer called upon the appellant to submit a plan of the lay-out of the whole survey number. This lawful requirement was, however, not complied with until the 9th May, 1932. After the Executive Engineer had on the 20 July, 1931, called for a plan of the lay-out of the whole survey number no further communication was addressed to the appellant until the 5 May, 1932, when the Special Officer issued a notice, purporting to be pursuant to Secs.338 and 339, by which he required the appellant to demolish his building within four days on the ground that it had been erected without municipal licence . This notice was tendered to the appellant, but he refused to accept it, although four days later he sent the plan of the lay-out as required by the Executive Engineer. On the 7 June, 1932, the Special Officer sent men to the site for. the purpose of demolishing the building and this work was carried out in the presence of officials of the municipality and the Circle Inspector of Police. These facts are not in dispute.
(3.)The case for the appellant is that the-local authority had no power to demolish his building without taking the steps contemplated by Section 216 of the Act. The case for the respondent council is that the Special Officer had full authority to do what he did by reason of the provisions of Secs.338 and 339. The appellant's reply is that Section 216 is a section which applies in the case of a breach of the building regulations and that Section 338 only applies when no special procedure is laid down. We consider that there is great force in the appellant's contention.