- (1.) This is a Rule at the instance of a landlord, who was served with a notice by the municipal authorities of Calcutta for demolition of an unauthorised structure raised in his building by a tenant, who is the opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 1 in this Rule is the Corporation of Calcutta.
(2.) It appears from the findings of the learned magistrate as well as from the evidence, that on May 12, 1950, a notice was issued, which was proved by the despatch clerk, for a meeting dated May 16, 1950, both on the Petitioner, the landlord, as well as, on the occupier, the tenant. The meeting was with respect to the demolition of the unauthorised structure put up by the tenant. As this meeting was adjourned, a post card of the adjourned date was also sent as was proved by the same despatch clerk.
(3.) The learned magistrate has accepted that such an intimation was actually sent not only to the owner but to the occupier tenant, namely, opposite party No. 2, Bechan Singh, but he has got a two-fold objection to the same. His first objection is that this is not "the statutory notice" and his second objection is that the post card about the intimation of the altered date is not a notice. With great respect to the learned magistrate, I do not pretend even to understand either of his contentions. Under Section 363 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, there are notices provided for on two different occasions. A notice, that is, an intimation, has to be given by the Calcutta Corporation under Clause (3) of Sub-section (1) of Section 363. This is an intimation of the meeting of the Calcutta Corporation, which has to be given only to the owner, so that he may have an opportunity of being heard. Wherever any notice in a particular form is to be given, provision is distinctly made for it in the Calcutta Municipal Act. For example, in Sections. 504 and 505 of the Act notice is to be given in a particular form as given in sch. 23. In the case of an intimation given under Clause (3) of Sub-section (1) of Section 363, no such particular form is prescribed. Therefore, any intimation which gives an opportunity to the owner of the building of being heard by the Corporation before they apply to the magistrate is sufficient. In the case of the intimation or notice by the Corporation before the application is made to the magistrate, there is no provision for any intimation or notice being given to the occupier. Therefore, I do not pretend to understand why any notice should have been given to the tenant, Bechan Singh, under Clause (3) of Sub-section (1) of Section 363. The owner himself admits having received such an intimation or notice.;