JUDGMENT

S.S. Dhavan, J. - These are two connected appeals from the decree of the Additional District Judge, Kanpur reversing that of the First Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur and dismissing the appellant's suit for an injunction to restrain the Kanpur Mahapalika from demolishing certain constructions made by the appellant in his house. They raised an important question of law-namely, whether the U. P. Government had the power to authorise the Administrator of any KAVAL towns (KANPUR, ALLAHABAD, VARANASI, AGRA, LUCKNOW) to delegate to another official the power of issuing a notice of demolition under Section 186 of the U. P. Municipalities Act. It is not necessary to relate all the facts or allegations made in the plaint and I shall state only those facts which are relevant to the decision of this appeal. The plaintiff-appellant, Kailash Chandra Nigam, is the owner of two houses in Kanpur known as Nos. 40171 and 40172 Parade Kanpur. Though separately numbered they really form one building today. The appellant, after purchasing the two houses from previous owners, decided to re-build and renovate portions of them. He submitted to the Municipal Board, Kanpur (to be called the Board) a consolidated plan for building a single house. Certain objections against the plan were made by the Board kind the appellant modified it to meet them. According to the appellant he started making the constructions in accordance with the plan, but on 11-3-1957 he received a notice signed by an official describing himself as the Scheme Secretary of the Board, and requiring him to demolish a portion of the constructions already made by him. On 31-3-1957 he received a second notice signed by the same official and requiring him to demolish another portion already constructed by him. Both these notices purported to have been issued under Section 186 of the U. P. Municipalities Act. The appellant pleaded that both the notices were ultra vires, without jurisdiction, null and void. He asked for an injunction to restrain the Board from demolishing the constructions in pursuance of these illegal notices. As two notices had been issued the plaintiff filed two suits which were, however, consolidated and disposed of by a common hearing.

2. The Board resisted both the suits and denied that the notices were without jurisdiction or illegal. It raised a preliminary objection that the suit was barred under Section 321 of the U. P. Municipalities Act. On merits it pleaded that the appellant had raised the constructions in violation of the bye-laws of the Board and consequently these were liable to be demolished. It further contended that the notice was validly issued by the Scheme Secretary of the Board under the authority of the Administrator who had been empowered by a notification of the State Government to delegate his power under Section 186 of the Act to any other official of the Board.

3. The trial court held that the plaintiff had violated the bye-laws of the Board but was entitled to make the constructions because these would be deemed to have been sanctioned under Section 180 (3) of the U. P. Municipalities Act. It further held that the two notices issued under Section 186 of the Act were invalid as they had not been issued under the orders of the Board but only signed by the Scheme Secretary. Accordingly it decreed the suit and issued an in-junction to restrain the Board from demolishing the constructions in pursuance of the illegal notices.

4. On appeal the Additional District Judge also Weld that the plaintiff appellant had violated the bye-laws of the Board in making the constructions but disagreed that the plaintiff was entitled to make these constructions. He held that though Section 180 (3) provides that the sanction of the Board shall be deemed to have been given under certain circumstances (enumerated in that provision) , the proviso expressly stated that "nothing in sub-sec. (3) shall be construed to authorise any person to act in contravention of th