The service of a show cause notice on the person concerned before passing a demolition order is mandatory under Sections 343 and 344 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, and failure to comply with this requirement renders the demolition order illegal.

( 1 ) THE petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the judgment dated April 26, 1979, passed by Shri D. C. Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, as appellate authority under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act by which he dismissed the appeal against the demolition order dated November 27, 1978, passed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

( 2 ) ADMITTED facts leading to the filing of this writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioners are owners in possession of property No. 4, Bharat Nagar, Village Khizrabad, New Delhi, which is stated to be part of Khasra No. 13/23. It was the case of the petitioners that they had raised the building somewhere in the year 1947-48 and the respondent could not now demolish on the ground that the building was unauthorisedly constructed in view of Section 195 of the Punjab Municipal Act which was then applicable in Delhi, as no proceedings for demolition took place within six months of completion of the said building. It was averred that a ( show cause notice under Section 343 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (for short the Act ) prior to the passing of the demolition order in question was issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in the name of Shi Khem Chand, father of the petitioners, in respect of two rooms and a well as depicted in sketch drawn on the said show cause notice. This notice was actually delivered to Rajinder Singh, one of the petitioners. Khem Chand had admittedly sent a reply mentioning that he has nothing to do with the building in question and no recent constructions have been made and only some repairs have been effected by the petitioners who are the real owners of the property in question and mutation already stands effected in the name of the petitioners showing them as owners in the record of the Municipal Corporation. Alongwith the reply to the show cause notice certain photo copies of the documents were filed showing that there had been certain tenants in this building and thus there had been erected no new construction. It appears from the record produced before me by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi that in the proceedings before the Corporation Shri Mohinder Singh, one of the petitioners, appeared on his behalf and also on behalf of other co-owners. The zonal Engineer recorded the proceedings in which he also narrated the facts pleaded by Shri Mohinder Singh. Mohinder Singh had denied that any new construction had been raised except that he admitted that Suresh Chand, tenant, had placed a few sheets adjoining his shop which he has removed and the fact may be verified at the site. He also mentioned that the rear wall to which objections had been raised has been also reduced to the height of 5 which was the old height of the wall. These proceedings were recorded on November 15, 1978.

( 3 ) IT appears that at the back of the petitioners the Zonal Engineer concerned called for record pertaining to house-tax and after noticing that the 120 name of the tenant disclosed in the reply did not appear in the house-tax record, the Zonal Engineer gave a report that the two rooms are unauthorisedly constructed recently and so also the rear wall and the order of demolition was passed on November 24, 1978 by Shri Tirath Raj, Zonal Engineer (Building ). I may mention that he had mentioned in the demolition order that a portion of the shop of Suresh Chand is old construction and only the extended portion of his shop is re::ent unauthorised construction besides another shop which is also unauthorised construction and they were depicted in a sketch on the demolition order. An appeal was filed against the demolition order by the petitioners. It may be pertinent to mention that show cause notice was issued in the name of Khem Chand while the demolition order has been made against the petitioners. During the pendency of the appeal the Additional District Judge had appointed a Local Commissioner who inspected the spot and at