This is plaintiffs Second Appeal arising out of a suit filed by him for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, through the Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, its employees, agents, and Inspectors etc. from demolishing the Chhajja of plaintiffs house situated in No. 124-A/53, Govind Nagar, Kanpur. The case taken by the plaintiff-appellant was that he had made the construction according to the approved and sanctioned plan but on 28th of July, 1967 two inspectors of the defendant along with two peons came and demolished the three Chhajjas of the plaintiffs house. He filed a criminal complaint and reconstructed the aforesaid three Chhajjas. It was alleged that no notice had been given to him by the defendant before demolishing the Chhajjas.

The suit was contested by the defendant, inter alia, on the ground that "a notice under Section 10 of the U. P. Regulation of Buildings Operation Act of 1985 had been given to the plaintiff" but he refused to accept the same. It was also contended that the disputed Chhajjas had not been made according to the sanctioned plan.

The trial Court framed several issues and held that the disputed Chhajjas bad not been authorised by the defendant and after the demolition of the same the plaintiff" could not re-construct the Chhajjas. On that finding the suit was dismissed.

Being aggrieved the plaintiff-appellant filed an appeal and it was contended on his behalf before the lower appellate Court that since notice under the U. P. Regulation of Buildings Operation Act had not been served on him the disputed Chhajjas could not be demolished and secondly that the demolition could be made only under Section 327 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam but that was not attracted because the Chhajjas did not constitute any encroachment on the defendants land. According to the plaintiff-appellant the case was not covered by Section 296 of the Adhiniyam. The learned Lower Court held that the service of notice under Section 10 of the Regulation of Buildings Operation Act had not been proved. However, in its opinion the case was

covered by Section 296 of the Adhiniyam and since under that provision no prior notice was required, the view taken was that the defendant-respondent did not commit any illegality in demolishing the Chhajjas without any notice and that the plaintiffs suit had been rightly dismissed. Being aggrieved the plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal.

It has been contended before me on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that the view taken by the Court below that the disputed constructions were covered by Section 296 of the Adhiniyam was erroneous. According to the learned counsel it is Section 292 which is applicable and not Section 296 and since Section 296 requires the giving of a written notice in case some unauthorised projection upon streets is made and since no such notice was given in this case the action of the defendant-respondent in demolishing the disputed Chhajjas was illegal and the appellant was entitled to the relief of injunction claimed.

After hearing counsel for parties I find that there is considerable merit in the above contention. Sections 292 and 296 both find place under the heading "projections and Obstructions". Section 292 provides for prohibition of projection upon streets etc. and in so far it is relevant for the present purpose reads as under;

" (1) Except as provided in Section 293, no person shall erect, set up, add to, or place against or in front of any premises any structure or fixture, which will.

(a) overhang, but or project into, or in any way encroach upon or obstruct in any way the safe or convenient passage of the public along any street, or

(b ). . . . . . . . . . . .

(2) The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari may, by written notice, require the owner or occupier of any premises to remove or to take such other order as he may direct with any structure or fixture which has