The notice of demolition under section 343 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, must be delivered to the person at whose instance the erection or work has been commenced or completed, and not merely served in the manner prescribed by section 444 of the Act.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in which the facts may be briefly stated. The petitioner owns a plot of land No. 85, bearing Municipal No. 5967, Ward No. 14, in Basti Harphul Singh, Delhi which, he says, he purchased in 1963 for a sum of Rs 26,000. According to his allegations, sanction for the construction of a building on the said plot was accorded by the Delhi Municipal Corporation on 28th July 1984, He later on wanted seme alterations to be made and the same were allowed on 2nd January 1965. After the building had been erected at a cost of Rs. 43,000. 00 On 27th March 1965 the Corporation issued a notice saying that the R. C. C. roof for the purpose of opening excessive basement had been erected without sanction and the petitioner was called upon to show cause against demolition within a period of 48 hours under section 343 (1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. (hereinafter called the Act ). On 3rd April 1965 the Zonal Officer of the Corooration issued an order directing demolition of the roof in question. The petitioner says that this notice was delivered to Banwari Lal, his father. No date was written by the recipient on the notice and the petitioner as well as his father believed and maintained that the notice v/as served on 17th April 1965. On 22nd April 1965 the petitioner filed an apoeal before the. District Judge under section 343 of the Act against the order of demolition. This appeal was held to be harred by time by one day as it had been filed on 22nd April 1965 and the learned judge said that the notice had been served on the petitioner on 16th April 1965 and not on 17th April 1965. In the affidavit in reply which was filed on behalf of the respondent Corporation dated 28th January 1966, with regard to the notice it was stated that it was not with he knowledge of the respondent Corporation as to whether the petitioner or his father received the notice of demolition but it was wrong and false that it was delivered a. nd served on 17th April 1965, This notice was served on 16th April 19 65 and the report of the process-server was also to the same effect. When the matter came before me the petitioner sought permission to amend the writ petition so as to raise certain points in which new facts were not involved. These are given in paragraph 3 of the petition for leave to amend dated 28th February 1966. Out of these I can see no objection to allowing the raising of grounds A. X and B. XI and I hereby grant leave to amend in that behalf. I see no reason or justification for allowing the other amendments sought. Mr. B. C. Misra for the petitioner says that the points covered by those grounds have already been raised in the petition. If that be so, then the question of amendment does not arise. The amendment to the extent it has been allowed is allowed only on pay- merit of Rs. 50. 00 as costs which have been paid to the counsel for the res- pondent Corporation in Court. It may be mentioned that the respondent Corporation has also filed a reply to the petition seeking amendment and in that reply the necessary facts with regard to the grounds on which the permission has been granted have been given. The writ petition can, therefore, be disposed of immediately.

( 2 ) MR. Misra has sought to raise a number of points "which may be set out below:-

(1) The appeal before the learned District Judge under section 343 of the Act was not barred by time. (2) No opportunity was given by the learned District Judge for proving that the appeal was within time. (3) Section 343 (2), as amended, is ultra vires and unconstitutional on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (4) The provisions contained in the afore said section are directory and not mandatory.

( 3 ) IN my opinion, it is unnecessary to decide all the other points raised by Mr. Misra because the petition must succeed on the fust two points. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 343 of the Act a