JUDGMENT K. S. Verma, J. 1. THE above mentioned revision applications are directed against the appellate order passed by the Additional District Judge, Lucknow upholding the order of the Judge Small Causes, Lucknow under section 472 of the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam whereby he had dismissed the applicant's appeal against ex-parte order dated 31-3-1967 passed by a Sub-Committee of the Executive Committee of the Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika. By the ex-parte order house no. 222/4 situated in Raja Bazar, Lucknow, was assessed under sec. 213 of the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) in the name of the applicant's husband Lala Ram Swarup Rastogi on a rental annual value of Rs. 5124/-. The facts that have given rise to the assessment of the house are that the applicant in both the revisions claims to be the owner of the house which, according to her, is in her occupation. By a registered sale deed dated 12-11-1960, the applicant purchased land with dilapidated structures thereon from it's former owner. Thereafter, she constructed a double stoned building in the year 1966-67 on the said land after demolishing the existing structures. The complaint of the applicant is that no notice of assessment was ever served upon the applicant or on her husband or any member of her family. On 30-3-1970 when her representative appeared before the Sub Committee of the Executive Committee of the Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow for the hearing and disposal of her objections in response to the notice issued for the quinquennial assessment, it was known from the file that the house was assessed on 31-3-1967 on an annual rental value of Rs. 5124/. On 6-4-1970, she applied for a copy of the order dated 31-3-1967 which was issued to her on 24-4-1970. On receipt of the copy of the order, she came to know that her house was assessed on annual rental of Rs. 5124 in the name of her husband in the year 1967. According to the applicant, no bill of taxes was ever served upon her or her husband on the basis of that assessment. The notice of demand dated 12-3-1970 was received by her husband through registered post in respect of arrears of taxes from 1-4-1967 up to 31-3-1970. It may be stated that in the quinquennial assessment, the assessment of the house made on 31-3-1967 was confirmed. The notice of demand dated 12-3-1970 was received by her husband through registered post in respect of arrears of taxes from 1-4-1967 up to 31-3-1970. It may be stated that in the quinquennial assessment, the assessment of the house made on 31-3-1967 was confirmed. The applicant preferred two appeals before the Judge Small Causes, Lucknow. One appeal was directed against the assessment made in the year 1967 and the other appeal was directed against the assessment of the house made in 1970 whereby the assessment was made in terms of the assessment of 1967. During the pendency of the appeals against the assessment orders, Ram Swarup, husband of the applicant, filed an affidavit in which he stated his address as follows :- "I Ram Swarup s/o Late Sri Lachmi Narain Rastogi, aged about 56 years, r/o house no. 222/4, Raja Bazar, Lucknow." In the said affidavit, Ram Swarup has stated that no notice of assessment was ever received or served upon him. He has stated that he did not receive any bill of taxes in respect of the said house assessed in his name on an annual rental value of Rs. 5124 except a notice dated 12-3-1970 through registered post demanding arrears of taxes from 1-4-1967 to 31-3-1970 due against the said house. He further states in the affidavit that no other bill prior to the said notice of demand was ever received by or served upon him. 2. BEFORE the appellate court, it was contended on behalf of the applicant that she was the owner of the house in dispute and inspire of that no notice for purposes of assessment was ever addressed, tendered or served on her in the year 1967. The applicant contended that she came to know at the time when the re-assessment was made in 1970 that the house was assessed in the year 1967 ex-parte. She filed objections in respect of the old assessment as well which, according to the applicant, was done arbitrarily in her absence without any notice to her. The Judge Small Cause Court by its order dated 22-12-1970 dismissed the appeal and recorded a finding that the notice under section 213 of the Adhiniyam, 1959 for casual assessment was duly served on the applicant's husband by affixation on 28-2-1967. Against the appellate order dated 22-12-1970, two appeals were preferred before the District Judge, Lucknow under section 476 of the Adhiniyam. Against the appellate order dated 22-12-1970, two appeals were preferred before the District Judge, Lucknow under section 476 of the Adhiniyam. The learned District Judge by his judment dated 3-8-1972 dismissed the appeal on the ground that no question of law was involved and hence no interference with the order of the lower appellate Court was called for. Aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge, the applicant has filed these revision applications in this Court. 3. IN this revision application, I have heard Mr. Jai Karan Nath for the applicant and Mr. B. L. Kaul on behalf of Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow. It was contended on behalf of the applicant that no notice of assessment was served on the applicant although she was the owner of the house. It was contended on her behalf that since the applicant was the owner of the house and since no attempt was made by the Nagar Mahapalika to serve the notice on her, the service of notice on her husband Ram Swarup was not proper and in law it will be deemed that there was no service on the applicant. It was further contended that the assessment proceedings for the year 1967 were without jurisdiction as in the absence of any notice to the applicant, she could not file her objections and could not contest the arbitrary assessment made by the Nagar Mahapalika in respect of the house in dispute. On the other hand, Mr. B. L. Kaul, learned counsel for the Nagar Mahapalika contended by reference to various provisions of the Adhiniyam that personal notice of assessment was not necessary and it was sufficient if a notice was served on any occupier of the house. He further contended that Nagar Mahapalika is a Local Body and it is not possible to keep track of the changes in ownership from time to time in respect of numerous houses in the city. He contended that it was the duty of the applicant, when she purchsed the house to have informed the Nagar Mahapalika that she was the owner of the house in dispute. If she failed to do, she did it at her own risk and the order of assessment could not be challenged by the applicant on the ground of non-service of notice. 4. If she failed to do, she did it at her own risk and the order of assessment could not be challenged by the applicant on the ground of non-service of notice. 4. IN order to resolve the controversy in the instant case, reference may be made to relevant provisions of the Adhiniyam. Chapter IX of the Adhiniyam deals with 'Mahapalika Taxation'. Under section 172 of the Adhiniyam the Mahapalika is empowered to impose the following taxes, namely, "(a) property taxes..............." Under section 207 of the Adhiniyam, the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari shall cause an assessment list of all buildings or lands or both in the city to be prepared, containing the name of the owner and occupier, "known". Under section 209 of the Adhiniyam, the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari is also required to give notice to the owner or occupier of the property "if known". Section 211 of the Adhiniyam provides that a new assessment list shall ordinarily be prepared in the manner prescribed by sections 207 to 210 of the Adhiniyam once in every five years. Under section 213 (1) (b) of the Adhiniyam, the Executive Committee or a sub committee thereof appointed in that behalf may at any time alter or amend the assessment list by substituting therein for the name of the owner or occupier of any property the name of any other person who has succeeded by transfer or otherwise to the ownership or occupation of the property. Section 214 of the Adhiniyam provides as follows :- "When a building is built, re-built or enlarged, the owner shall give notice thereof to the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari within fifteen days from the date of completion of such building, re-building or enlargement, or from the date of the occupation of such building, whichever date happens first." Section 554 (3) of the Adhiniyam provides that when any notice is required to be served on the owner or occupier of any building or land, it shall not be necessary to name the owner or occupier therein and the service shall be effected as follows :- "(a) by giving or tendering the said notice, bill, schedule, summons or other documents to the owner or occupier or if there be more than one owner or occupier, to any one of the owners or occupiers of such building or land, (b) if the owner or occupier or none of the owners or occupiers is found, by giving or tendering the said notice, bill, schedule, summons or other documents to some adult member or servant of the family of the owner or occupier or any of the owners or occupiers, or (c) if none of the means aforesaid be available by causing the said notice, bill, schedule, summons or other documents to be affixed on some conspicuous part of the building or land to which the same relates." During the course of arguments my attention was drawn to the Commentary on the U. P. Municipalities Act by S. P. Sinha. The analogous provision contained in sec. 554 of the Adhiniyam in regard to the manner of service is to be found in section 303 of U. P. Municipalities Act 1916. The said section provides that it shall not be necessary to mention the name of the owner or occupier while serving a notice under the said Act. The said Commentary mentions that most of the Local Bodies in this country have enacted provisions in lines with section 303 of the Municipalities Act and section 554 of the Adhiniyam. 5. IT was contended by Mr. B. L. Kaul that having regard to the provisions of the Adhiniyam it was not necessary while issuing notice for assessment, to be very particular about the owner or occupier of the building. 5. IT was contended by Mr. B. L. Kaul that having regard to the provisions of the Adhiniyam it was not necessary while issuing notice for assessment, to be very particular about the owner or occupier of the building. According to him it was enough if a correct description of the building was given and the notice was served on a responsible member of the family. 6. AFTER having heard the learned counsels for the parties, I am of the view that the line of reasoning adopted by Mr. B. L. Kaul is correct. A perusal of the provisions of the Adhiniyam referred to above would indicate that the responsibility of making assessment rests with the Nagar Mahapalika in respect of lakhs of houses in the city. It is not possible for a Local Body, as stated earlier, to keep track of transfer of ownership from time to time. As a matter of fact, the Legislature was conscious of this difficulty and enacted section 214 of the Adhiniyam which provides that it is (she duty of the owner or occupier to inform the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari about the completion of the building, re-building or enlargement of the same. In regard to the change of ownership from time to time, Rules have been framed under section 296 of the U. P. Municipalities Act. Rule 5 of the House Tax Rules and Rule 5 of the Water Tax Rules both provide that whenever there is a change in the ownership, it will be the duty of the owner to convey information about the same. The applicability of House Tax and Water Tax Rules have been saved by section 577 (a) of the Adhiniyam. Rule 5 (1) of the House Tax Rules provides as follows :- "Rules for the assessment and collection of the tax on the annual value of buildings and land situated within the limits of the Lucknow Municipality. (Notification No. 1612 (2)/XI-13-H-45 dated 30-3-46). 5-(1). Rule 5 (1) of the House Tax Rules provides as follows :- "Rules for the assessment and collection of the tax on the annual value of buildings and land situated within the limits of the Lucknow Municipality. (Notification No. 1612 (2)/XI-13-H-45 dated 30-3-46). 5-(1). if the properietary rights in any buildings and land assessed or subject to the payment of this tax are transferred the person who transfers his rights and the persons to whom they are transferred, shall within three months after the execution of the instrument of transfer or after its registration, if it is registered or after delivery is effected, if no instrument is executed give notice of such transfer in writing to the Executive Officer." Rule 5 (1) of Water Tax Rules runs as under :-? "Rules for assessment and collection of the Water Tax in the Lucknow Municipality. Govt. Notification No. 268/XI-13-H, dated 13th January, 1917, with reference to Sections 153, 140 (1) (a), 151 (2). 5. (1) If the proprietary rights in any building or land assessed to, or subject to the payment of, this tax are transferred, the person who transfers his rights and the person to whom they are transferred shall, within three months after execution of the instrument of transfer, or after its registration, if it is registered, or after delivery is effected, if no instrument is executed, give notice of such transfer in writing to the board or to the executive officer." Having regard to the provisions referred to above, it is obvious that when the applicant purchased the property in dispute and made constructions thereon it was her duty to intimate the Nagar Mahapalika that she was the owner of the same so that if notices were to be served in regard to the assessment and re-assessment they could be served on her. It is admitted that the applicant did not convey this information to the Nagar Mahapalika. It has to be borne in mind that in the instant case the applicant was at fault in not conveying the necessary information about the purchase of the property in dispute by her to the Nagar Mahapalika. If she has not complied with the provisions of the Act, she cannot be heard to complain that no notice was served on her. If she has not complied with the provisions of the Act, she cannot be heard to complain that no notice was served on her. As a matter of fact, the Nagar Mahapalika is not expected to know of the change in ownership and if the person concerned does not convey the said information, that person cannot be permitted to complain, that while making assessment, no notice was served upon him or her. It is not disputed that the notice was in respect of the house in dispute and was really served on the husband of the applicant, namely, Ram Swarup. In his affidavit Ram Swarup mentions his address as house 222/4, Raja Bazar, Lucknow, which is the house in dispute. I am, therefore, of the view that since the applicant failed to inform the Nagar Mahapalika that she had become the owner of the property in dispute by purchase, she cannot be permitted to complain that no notice was served upon her. If the applicant had intimated the Nagar Mahapalika about the change of ownership the Nagar Mahapalika was bound under section 213 (1) (b) of the Adhiniyam to substitute her name as subsequent owner. The failure on the part of the applicant to convey the information about the change of ownership cannot be utilized by the applicant in support of her claim that no notice was served upon her when, admittedly, the notice for assessment was in respect of the house in dispute and has been held to have been served on the husband of the applicant. There is another matter which has to be taken into account while determining the controversy in question. Under sec. 207 of the Adhiniyam at the time of the preparation of the assessment list in respect of buildings or lands, the Nagar Mahapalika is required to mention the name of the owner and occupier, "if known". This provision clearly indicates that the mention of the owner or occupier in the assessment list or in the notice was not obligatory. What was obligatory was to prepare an assessment list in respect of buildings and lands and serve notices of assessment in respect of buildings and lands. If the name of the owner or occupier was not known, the Nagar Mahapalika authorities were not required to mention the same. The provision contained in section 207 of the Adhiniyam again supports the contention of Mr. If the name of the owner or occupier was not known, the Nagar Mahapalika authorities were not required to mention the same. The provision contained in section 207 of the Adhiniyam again supports the contention of Mr. B. L. Kaul that the mention of the name of the owner or occupier is not obligatory and that it was enough if the property in question was mentioned. For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the view that the notice of assessment in the year 1967 was issued in respect of the house in dispute and was served on Ram Swarup, the husband of the applicant. The notice was not served on the applicant because she did not intimate the Nagar Mahapalika that she had become the owner of the property in dispute by purchase. If she had intimated the authorities concerned, then the applicant could successfully contended that there was no service of notice on her. In the instant case, the applicant is at fault and cannot be permitted to take advantage of her own fault. 7. FOR the reasons stated above, I am satisfied that the orders passed by the courts below are correct and the assessment of the house in dispute made in the year 1967 and 1970 are absolutely correct. The revision applications, there fore, fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, there will be no orders as to costs. Revisions dismissed.