JUDGMENT V.K. Mehrotra, J. - This is a plaintiffs' second appeal in a suit for injunction which was decreed by the trial court and dismissed by the lower appellate court. 2. The case of the plaintiffs was that on plot No. 879. Jagiapurwa, Kanpur, they were running a milk dairy. In connection with their business, they had set up some structure long ago when the area was not included within the limits of the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika. Subsequently, the area was brought within the boundaries of the Nagar Mahapalika. It is alleged that the plaintiffs incurred displeasure of a locally influential person in connection with the proposed election to the Nagar Mahapalika whom they refused to oblige. As such an incorrect notice, falsely alleging that the plaintiffs were raising some structure without permission of the Nagar Mahapalika which they were asked to remove, was issued. This was on March 16, 1965. The plaintiffs were served with another notice on March 25, 1965 requiring them to remove the unauthorised constructions allegedly raised by them within a period of three days failing which it was to be demolished by the Nagar Mahapalika. Since the effort of the plaintiffs to convince the Mahapalika authorities about the fact that the structures were old, failed and there was imminent danger of demolition by the Nagar Mahapalika of the structures standing on the land, the necessity arose for the suit for restraining it by an injunction. 3. The main defence of the Nagar Mahapalika was that during the routine inspection, it was discovered by the Mahapalika Inspector, who also appeared in the witness box on its behalf, that the plaintiffs were raising unauthorised constructions without obtaining permission of the Nagar Mahapalika. They were served with notice asking them to desist from doing so. Since the plaintiffs were adamant, another notice was served upon them requiring them to remove the unauthorised constructions within three days. The plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief in the suit. 4. One of the pleas that the plaintiffs had taken was that the notice aforesaid had not been issued by an authority competent to do so. Their case was that it was only the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari who was authorised to issue a notice himself or delegate the power for doing so on some other servant of the Mahapalika. 4. One of the pleas that the plaintiffs had taken was that the notice aforesaid had not been issued by an authority competent to do so. Their case was that it was only the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari who was authorised to issue a notice himself or delegate the power for doing so on some other servant of the Mahapalika. In the instant case one Sri Laghate, who was Deputy Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, had authorised the Revenue Inspector and the Kshetriya Adhikari, Zone I to issue these notices. He could not have done so. The trial court framed issue No. 2 on this aspect of the matter. The issue was whether the notices have been issued h~ incompetent authority". The trial cowl that the Deputy Mukhya Nagar Adhikari was not authorised in law to delegate the power of issuance of the impugned notices to the Revenue Inspector and the Kshetriya Adhikari. These notices were, therefore invalid. 5. The trial court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the constructions were not old as alleged by the plaintiffs but were new and had been raised after the area in question had become a part of the limits of the Nagar Mahapalika. It also found that the plaintiffs had not obtained any permission from the Nagar Mahapalika for raising them. In view, however, of its finding on the second issue, the trial court felt that the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction restraining the Mahapalika from demolishing the disputed structures on the basis of the notices, dated March 16, 1965 and March 25, 1965. It decreed the suit accordingly. 6. The Nagar Mahapalika assailed the decree in an appeal. The plaintiff filed a cross-objection against the finding recorded by the trial court about recent nature of the construction. 7. The first question which was posed by the lower appellate court for determination was whether disputed constructions were old and existed before the area was included within the limits of the Municipal Corporation. This question was answered by the lower appellate court, on reappraisal of the evidence on record, against the plaintiffs. It held, like the trial court, that the plaintiffs had raised the offending structures recently after the area had been included in the corporation limits and that the structures were not standing on the plot from before as claimed by the plaintiffs. 8. It held, like the trial court, that the plaintiffs had raised the offending structures recently after the area had been included in the corporation limits and that the structures were not standing on the plot from before as claimed by the plaintiffs. 8. The third point for determination posed by the lower appellate court was "whether the notices in dispute were issued by the competent authorities and were legal?" On the point the lower appellate court differed from the view taken by the trial court. It took the view that Sri Laghate had been appointed to officiate as the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari in the Nagar Mahapalika through a notification dated Nov. 28, 1964. While so officiating, he had delegated the power of issuance of the disputed notices to the Revenue Inspector and the Kshetriya Adhikari which was in accordance with law. On these findings, the lower appellate court felt that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief of injunction which had been granted by the trial court. It set aside the decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit. This is how the plaintiffs have come to this court in the present second appeal. 9. The appeal was initially heard by Hon'ble H. N. Kapoor, J. (since retired) who remitted an issue to the lower appellate court for a finding thereon by his order dated July 22, 1976. The issue was 'whether on 12-11-1964 Sri Laghate was acting or officiating as Mukhya Nagar Adhikari and whether he was competent to delegate powers under S. 119, U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, as done by order No. 12415-K-I/JH dated 12-11-1964?" He directed that the parties may be given opportunity to lead evidence. The matter went back to the lower appellate court which has, by its order dated Nov. 23, 1978, returned a finding on the issue. The finding is that at the relevant time Sri Laghate as officiating Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, was competent to make the delegation. 10. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the' plaintiffs that the conclusion of the two courts below that the offending structures were new and had been raised after the area was included within the limits of the Nagar Mahapalika was not sustainable as it was perverse. In spite of hearing him for quite sometime on this aspect of the case, it is not possible to accept his submission. In spite of hearing him for quite sometime on this aspect of the case, it is not possible to accept his submission. The finding recorded by the two courts below concurrently on this question is sustainable on the evidence on record. It has not been shown to be perverse in the sense that on the material on record, no reasonable person would have arrived at it. The challenge to this finding must, therefore, fail. 11. The second submission of the learned counsel is that an officiating Mukhya Nagar Adhikari was not competent to delegate the function of issuance of a notice under S. 327, Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, upon some other servant of the Nagar Mahapalika and that the lower appellate court had erred in taking a view to that effect. This submission does not appear to be correct. S. 119, U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, provides, in its material part, that subject to other provisions of the Act and the Rules, and subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified by the Mahapalika the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari may delegate to any municipal servant any of the functions other than those specified in part D of Schedule I. The function of issuance of a notice under S. 327 of the Act is not one of those functions which are specified in part D of the first Schedule. By his appointment to officiate as Mukhya Nagar Adhikari Sri Laghate was competent to exercise all the powers and discharge all the functions which the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari was competent to do. He could, therefore, also delegate the function of issuing the impugned notices to the officers, who have actually issued them, under S. 119 (1) (d) of the Act. 12. It was also urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that the case was not covered by S. 327 of the Adhiniyam at all so that the two notices could not be issued. Their precise submission is that for raising the kind of structure that was allegedly raised by the plaintiffs, no notice had to be given to the Nagar Mahapalika nor was its permission necessary to be sought. -As such, the action was not contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 13. Their precise submission is that for raising the kind of structure that was allegedly raised by the plaintiffs, no notice had to be given to the Nagar Mahapalika nor was its permission necessary to be sought. -As such, the action was not contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 13. The impugned action of the plaintiffs included raising of a boundary wall above the plinth level to a height of six feet, partitioning the two chambers of a shed, which was clearly in the nature of erection of a building as defined in S. 315 of the Adhiniyam. It is not in dispute that one of the boundary walls raised adjoined an open land lying between the street and the plot in dispute. Such erection requires notice to be given to the Nagar Mahapalika under S. 316 of the Adhiniyam. The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari or his delegate was, therefore, competent to proceed under S. 327 of the Adhiniyam in respect of the offending constructions. 14. The action of the defendant- respondents in requiring the plaintiffs to remove the offending structures within the time specified was fully justified by the provisions of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. It is apparent that in these circumstances the plaintiffs could not claim the relief of injunction restraining the Mahapalika from requiring them to remove the offending structures. The lower appellate court did not commit any error of law in refusing relief to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs could always approach the Nagar Mahapalika for condoning their lapse in proceeding to raise the structure without seeking permission from it. The Mahapalika could, if it so wished, have granted relief to the plaintiffs in exercise of its statutory powers in that regard. 15. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed but. in the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.