Purposive construction of municipal building laws validated notice against a current owner despite no personal construction of the unauthorised work.

Sections 260(1)(a) and 478 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 were construed together to permit enforcement against unauthorised construction by the person who carried out the work and, where the statute so provides, the owner liable at the time of notice. The provisions were read purposively to ensure that municipal action to remove, alter or pull down unlawful building work does not fail merely because ownership changed after the infringement. The notice was therefore valid against the owner even though she was not shown to have personally erected the offending structure, and the appeal succeeded with the respondent's suit dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a notice under section 260(1)(a) read with section 478 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 could validly be issued against the owner of premises even if the owner had not personally erected the unauthorised construction.

Analysis: Section 260(1)(a) empowers the Commissioner to require the person erecting or having erected the unauthorised building work to show cause why it should not be removed, altered or pulled down. Section 478, which forms part of the same statutory scheme, expressly provides that where work is done without written permission, the Commissioner may require it to be removed or undone by the person carrying it out, and if that person is not the owner at the time of notice, the owner is also liable to comply. The provisions were construed together and broadly, in light of the object of municipal building regulation, so that the power to remove unauthorised construction would not fail merely because the building had changed hands after the infringement.

Conclusion: The notice was held to be valid and the Municipal Corporation was entitled to proceed against the respondent owner notwithstanding that she was not shown to be the person who actually constructed the offending portion.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's decision was set aside on the validity of the notice, and the respondent's suit was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Provisions governing unauthorised municipal construction must be construed together and purposively so that enforcement may be directed not only against the actual builder but also, where the statute so provides, against the owner liable at the time of notice.

---