( 1 ) IT was the case of the first respondent in the writ petition it filed that no notice under Section 225 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 had been served on it. The judgment of the Division Bench that is under appeal proceeds upon that basis. There is no ground in the appeal before us that challenges this finding.

( 2 ) SECTION 225 of the Act says that for the purposes of recovery of any consolidated rent (sic rate) from any occupier, the Municipal Corporation must serve upon such occupier a notice requiring him to pay the Corporation any rent due or falling due from him in respect of the land or building in his occupation and such notice operates as an attachment of rent. Clearly, until and unless such notice has been served upon the occupier, the liability of the occupier does not begin. No notice having been served upon the first respondent, its liability did not arise.

( 3 ) THE appeal is dismissed.

( 4 ) NO order as to costs.