1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by Putlibai appellant against (1) Municipal Corporation Gwalior and (2) Ramcharan respondent, alleging that her husband Tejumal was the tenant of the Municipal Corporation in respect of a stall No. 95 with its appertunent open space 6' x 3' in the Victoria Market Lashkar. But the corporation unauthorisedly and without notice to her auctioned the stall on 31-5-60 in favour of Ram Charan. She gave a notice to the Corporation on 1-6-60 and instituted this suit on 30-7-60. In the meantime, on 29-7-60 the defendants threatened and attempted to dispossess her. The suit was dismissed by the trial Judge for want of notice to the Municipal Corporation as required by section 401 of the M. B. Municipal Corporation Act No. 23 of 1956. The plaintiff's appeal has been dismissed by the Second Additional District Judge, Gwalior.

2. Defects pointed out by the Courts below in the notice dated 1-6-60 are two: (1) That it was addressed to the Municipal Commissioner and not b the Municipal Corporation; (2) That in respect of the cause of action which arose on 29-7-60 no separate notice was given and it could not have been mentioned in the notice dated 1-6-60.

3. Section 401 (1) of the Corporation Act enacts as follows:-

"No suit shall be instituted against the Corporation the Standing Committee, or any Corporation Officer or servant or any person acting under the direction of the Corporation...... in respect of any act done or purporting to have been done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of this Act, or in respect of any alleged negligence of default in the execution of this Act...... until the expiration of one month next after notice in writhing has been delivered or left at the Chief Corporation Office or at the residence of such officer, servant or person stating......"

All that this section requires is that in case a suit is to be instituted against a Corporation or the Standing Committee, a notice in writing must be delivered or left at the Chief Corporation Office. This section does not lay down to whom the notice should be addressed. This has to be emphasized because provisions requiring notice have to be strictly construed is now settled. It is not the defendants' case that the notice dated 1-6-60 was not left at the Chief Corporation Office. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Corporation, the receipt of this notice is admitted. The only objection in the written statement which has been filed by the Municipal Commissioner on behalf of the Municipal Corporation is that the notice was addressed to the Commissioner and not to the Corporation.

4. Under section 400 of the said Act the Commissioner is empowered on behalf of the Corporation to institute defend or withdraw from legal proceedings under the Act and also to admit compromise or withdraw and claim made under the Act, and also to obtain such legal advice and assistance as he would from time to time think it necessary or expedient to obtain. The only fetters imposed arc that the Commissioner cannot admit, compromise or withdraw any claim in a suit in which the whole amount claimed exceeds Rs. 500 without the previous sanction of the Standing Committee or where the total mount claimed exceeds Rs. 2000 without the previous sanction of the Corporation. The present suit has been valued at Rs. 200.

5. The written statement in this case has been filed by the Municipal Corporation through the Municipal Commissioner, who has signed and verified it.

6. The learned Courts below have relied on the decision in Nathu Bahaj Vs. The Municipal Corporation Bombay, AIR 1949, Bombay, 332, where a notice under section 527 of the Bombay Municipal Act (2 of 1888) to the Municipal Commissioner was held to be not sufficient as the Municipal Corporation under that Act was not a body corporate. In that case reliance was placed on the observations in Bhagchand Vs. Secretary of State, AIR 1927 PC 176, that section 80 is to be strict