USHA MEHRA ( 1 ) M/s S. Kumar and Co. has assailed the order of the Sub Judge as well as of the First Appellate Court whereby they held that civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit against the order of demolition passed by the N. D. M. C. ( 2 ) THE appellant herein, who happens to be the tenant of M/s Sher Singh Ranvir Singh in respect of premises bearing No. K -. 26, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, filed a suit for injunction restraining the respondent/n. D. M. C. from demolishing the rear portion of the above said premises. According to the appellant, no unauthorised construction had been raised. Notice under Section 195-A of the Punjab Municipal Act (hereinafter called the p. M. Act ) for discontinuation of the of the construction was served on the appellant on 1st March, 1985 which was replied by one Shri Subhash Diwedi on behalf of the appellant. It is further the case of the appellant that after the said notice, no notice under Section 195- A of the P. M. Act was served on the appellant by the respondent/n. D. M. C. and hence action to demolish is illegal and bad in law. ( 3 ) THESE averments of the appellant were contested by the respondent/n. D. M. C. by filing the written Statement According to N. D. M. C. the notice under Section 195 of the P. M. Act dated llth March, 1985 when tendered was refused by the appellant, therefore, the same was pasted as per the requirement of law. The trial court after examining the attorney of the appellant, Subhash Dewedi and the witnesses of N. D. M. C. held that notice was served and hence the appellant was not entitled to any relief of injunction. That the suit was barred under. Section 225 of the P. M. Act and Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act. The First Appellate Court also came to the conclusion that compliance of the provision of Section 195 of the. P. M. Act was done, and therefore, dismissed the appeal. That the suit was barred under. Section 225 of the P. M. Act and Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act. The First Appellate Court also came to the conclusion that compliance of the provision of Section 195 of the. P. M. Act was done, and therefore, dismissed the appeal. ( 4 ) IN this second appeal, the substantial question of law raised by the appellant is whether in a suit for injunction based on the non serving of notice under Section 195 of the P. M. Act, the trial court could enter into and adjudicate the area of conflict as to whether the construction was unauthorised or authorised? The jurisdiction of the trial court was limited to examining the factum of compliance or non compliance of the provision of P. M. Act and not the controversy on merits. The issue before the trial court was whether the appellant had been served with a notice under Section 195 of the P. M. Act or not. The examination of the case on merits as to whether the said construction was in existence for more than decade or was it new was not within the purview of the courts below. ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY the scope and ambit of the courts below was limited as to whether the N. D. M. C. complied with the provisions of Section 195 of the P. M. Act or not before taking action for demolition. The courts below were to decide as to whether the appellant was given. proper opportunity before passing the impugned order. The courts below could not exceed and travel beyond its jurisdiction or exercise the jurisdiction which was not vested in them. The bear reading of the impugned order would show that the trial court, instead of dealing this matter on the legal aspect, dealt the merits of the case as to whether it is a new or an old construction which was not within his scope. Subhash Dewedi, appearing as P. W. 1 on behalf of the appellant categorically stated that he only received one notice under Section 195-A of the P. M. Act which is Ex. P. W. 1/6 and that no notice was everservedby N. D. M. C. on 14th March, 1985 nor any Inspector of the N. D. M. C. visited the company. Subhash Dewedi, appearing as P. W. 1 on behalf of the appellant categorically stated that he only received one notice under Section 195-A of the P. M. Act which is Ex. P. W. 1/6 and that no notice was everservedby N. D. M. C. on 14th March, 1985 nor any Inspector of the N. D. M. C. visited the company. In cross examination he denied the suggestion that the notice under Section 195 dated 11th March 1985 was pasted at the suit premises or that it was refused by him. As against the statements of the witnesses on behalf of the N. D. M. C. is the statement of Sh. Vikram Mehto, Process Server. He testified that he pasted the notice under Section 195 of the P. M. Act at the suit premises because Mr. Subhash Diwedi after reading the notice refused to accept the same. The perusal of the notice under Section 195 of the P. M. Act which is placed on the trial court record shows that it was addressed to two persons namely Subhash Diwedi and legal heirs of late Sh. Sher Singh. The process server has nowhere stated that he also tried to serve this notice on the legal heirs of late Sh. Sher Singh, the owner of the property in question. The minutes of the meeting Ex. D. W. 3/1 shows that this approval was given by the Committee/ndmc to serve this notice on both the person; namely Subhash Diwedi as well as legal heirs of late Sh. Sher Singh. Why it was not served on both the persons at the same time creates doubt about the version given by the process server? Moreover, the endorsement Ex. DW1/1 shows that mis notice was affixed at the door of the premises and no witness attested this affixation. It is unbelievable that in the morning hours in a place like Con. Place no witness was available to witness this affixation. Therefore, to my mind, the trial court erred in coming to the conclusion that the notice under Section 195 of the P. M. Act was duly served on the occupier of the premises. In fact the service of this notice was not properly proved. If the occupier could receive a notice under Section 195. Therefore, to my mind, the trial court erred in coming to the conclusion that the notice under Section 195 of the P. M. Act was duly served on the occupier of the premises. In fact the service of this notice was not properly proved. If the occupier could receive a notice under Section 195. A just 10 days before i. e. on 1st March, 1985, why would he not receive the notice under Section 195 of the P. M. Act issued on 11th March, 1985? Section 215 of the P. M. Act is reproduced as under: "every notice issued by a committee under this Act or under any rule or bye law shall be in writing, signed by the president, vice-president, secretary or assistant secretary, or by the members of any sub-committee specially authorised by the committee in that behalf may be served on the person to whom it is addressed, or delivered or left at his usual place of abode or business with some adult male member or servant of his family or if it cannot be so served, may be affixed to some conspicous part of this place of abode or business. "but in this case, the notice addressed to the owner, was not served as admitted by the process server D. W. I himself. The notice under Section 195 of the P. M. Act, was also addressed to the legal heirs of late Sh. Sher Singh, i. e. owner of the premises. Admittedly in this case the owner and the occupier are two different persons, and therefore, the notice ought to have been served on both the persons. The order wasjgiven by the N. D. M. C. to serve both the persons i. e. owner as well as occupier but the process server as per his own admission did not even care to tender notice to the owner of the premises. ( 6 ) ON the notice received by the appellant under Section 195-A of the P. M. Act, an endorsement was made by Sh. Subhash Diwedi, therefore, it was necessary that the N. D. M. C. should have given opportunity to the appellant before ordering the demolition. The notice under Section 195 of the P. M. Act having not been served on the appellant, presumption can be drawn that the appellant was not afforded reasonable opportunity. Subhash Diwedi, therefore, it was necessary that the N. D. M. C. should have given opportunity to the appellant before ordering the demolition. The notice under Section 195 of the P. M. Act having not been served on the appellant, presumption can be drawn that the appellant was not afforded reasonable opportunity. Hence, to my mind, the civil court below alone had the jurisdiction to try this issue. ( 7 ) COUNSEL for the N. D. M. C. contended that there is a concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below that the notice under Section 195 of the P. M. Act was duly served on the occupier. This court in second appeal cannot interfere with this finding. Admittedly this court in second appeal cannot interfere with this finding of fact, but when the finding is. perverse or against the record, this court even in second appeal can look into it and when satisfied. It can reverse such finding which is passed on evidence. The finding of the trial court is contrary to the record, and therefore, this court is second appeal is justified to interfere with the same. In the absence of notice having been served under Section 195 of the P. M. Act the remedy for the appellant was to invoke the jurisdiction of the civil court and not by filing an appeal. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY set aside the order of the courts below and remand the case to the trial court to decide it in accordance with law.