ATUL KUMAR JAIN Vs. CANTT BOARD MEERUT CANTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) THE plaintiff - appellant challenged the order passed by the Cantonment Board under Section 256 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (hereinafter called as the Act) stating that no notice as required under Section 185 of the said Act was ever served upon him and the direction for demolition of the building erected by him is wholly illegal and uncalled for, therefore, the prayer for the relief of permanent injunction.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that since the service of the notice as claimed by the defendant in its pleading is not in the manner as provided under Section 254 of the Cantonment Act there could not be a legal presumption as to the said alleged service by the Court. It is submitted that under sub-section (1) of Section 254 of the Act if the addressee of the notice is not found at the place the notice should be served by giving or tendering the same to any adult male member or servant of the family and since the wife of the appellant is not a male member of the family, the delivery of the notice made to her should not be treated as sufficient service. THE learned counsel has further submitted that since the notice under Section 185 of the Act was not served upon the plaintiff-appellant, occasion for filing the appeal as provided under Section 274 of the Act did not arise and the suit as such cannot be said to be barred by Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act.