JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS revision under section 26 (2) of the M. P. Municipalities act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act"), is directed against an order dated october 27, 1969, by which the District Judge, East-Nimar Khandwa, allowed an election petition under section 20 of the Act and set ;aside the election of the applicant who had been returned from Ward No. 9 of Burnanpur Municipality. ( 2. ) THE material facts are these. In the Municipal elections held in the year 1968-69 there were only two candidates who contested the election from ward No. 9 of Burhanpur Municipality, one of them was the applicant and the other the non-applicant. The last date for filing nomination papers was november 11, 1968 and the date fixed for scrutiny was November 19, 1968. The Supervising, Officer rejected the nomination paper of the non-applicant on the ground that he had incurred a disqualification under section 35 (j) of the act. An appeal filed by the non-applicant against the rejection of his nomination paper was also dismissed. Thereupon, since the applicant was the only surviving candidate, he was declared duly returned from Ward No. 9. It was that election which the non-applicant successfully challenged in the lower court. ( 3. ) BEFORE dealing with the precise point in controversy in this Court it is necessary to set out the facts leading to the disqualification under section 35 (j)of the Act. A bill dated August 23, 1967, for taxes payable by the non-applicant had been served on him. It was followed by a notice of demand dated october 28, 1967, and it was also served upon him. The amount mentioned in this notice of demand was Rs. 43. 53 as taxes and 50 paise as notice fee, total rs 44/. A sum of Rs. 46. 50 was paid by the non-applicant on November 11,1968. This amount included Rs. 43. 50 on account of taxes as aforesaid and Rs. 3 /- more on account of notice fee and other arrears of taxes for the years 1966-67 and 1967-68 but did not include the interest. Further, a sum of rs. 2. A sum of Rs. 46. 50 was paid by the non-applicant on November 11,1968. This amount included Rs. 43. 50 on account of taxes as aforesaid and Rs. 3 /- more on account of notice fee and other arrears of taxes for the years 1966-67 and 1967-68 but did not include the interest. Further, a sum of rs. 2. 62 on account of interest was paid by the non-applicant on November 13, 1968 The question is whether the failure of the non-applicant to pay interest on or before the date by which he had filed his nomination paper, namely, november 11, 1968, disqualified him to be eligible for election. ( 4. ) THE relevant provisions of the Act are these : "35. Ho person shall be eligible for election or selection as a Councillor if he- (j) has not paid all taxes due by him to the Municipality at the end of the financial year immediately preceding that in which the election or selection is held or made within thirty days of the receipt of a notiee of demand made in this behalf by the Chief Municipal Officer. ** ** * provided further that the disqualification under clause (j) shall be deemed to have been automatically removed as soon as the Municipal dues are paid in full. " It is not disputed that the taxes were not paid within the time prescribed by clause (j) and that, therefore, the non-applicant had ceased to be eligible for election. The only question, therefore, was whether that disqualification had been removed by payment of Rs. 46. 50 on November 11, 1968 (the last date for filing the nomination paper) when that amount did not include Rs. 2. 62 payable as interest which was admittedly paid two days later. The learned district Judge devoted much attention to the question whether the amount of interest could be regarded as included in the word tax. That was material only for considering whether disqualification had been incurred under the aforesaid clause (j ). Once that disqualification was incurred and it is not disputed before me that it was so incurred, the question which the District Judge should have considered was whether the proviso enacted for removing the disqualification had been complied with. It is needless to say that the language of the proviso is unmistakable and emphatic. It requires payment of the municipal dues in full. It is needless to say that the language of the proviso is unmistakable and emphatic. It requires payment of the municipal dues in full. The dues are not equivalent to tax. The very fact, that the word tax has not been repeated in the proviso, shows that the word dues was employed to convey a different and wider meaning and that was further reinforced by the use of the words in full. I am also of opinion that, in a case like this, where a disqualification has been incurred and conditions are laid down in an enactment for the removal of that disqualification, those conditions are mandatory and must be fulfilled exactly. As already indicated, that condition was not so fulfilled because, by November 11, 1968, when the nomination paper was filed, the amount of interest included in the word dues had not been paid. That being so, the lower Courts view, that the non-applicant was not under any disqualification on November 11, 1968, is incorrect and cannot be sustained ( 5. ) THE result is that this application succeeds and is allowed. The lower Courts order dated October 27, 1969, is set aside and the election petition is dismissed. Costs throughout shall follow that event. Hearing fee rs. 50/ -. Revision application allowed.