P. K. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER, Smt. Sunita Rani has filed the present writ petition challenging the assessment order dated 6-11-1996 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition, and, also the order dated 6-4-1998 whereby the appeal preferred against the impugned order was dismissed by the appellate authority and the prayer to quash the said orders has been made. Further prayer is made to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to take the house tax as per earlier assessment on annual value of Rs. 1350. 00 per annum. ( 2 ) ). The averments contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner was tenant of House No. 72, Guru Nanakpuri (Tandel Mohalla), B. C. Bazar, Meerut Cantt. at the rate of Rs. 12. 00 per month since last more than 20 years. One Abdul Rehman was owner of the house. The house was constructed over an area of 106. 5 sq. metres, out of which 1/3rd is covered with two rooms, Verandah, Latrine and Bathroom. Its annual value was assessed at the rate of Rs. 1350. 00. On 23-11-1995 a notice of assessment was said to have been sent by the respondent No. 2 for revising assessment for the period of 1996 to 1999 and the proposed enhancement of annual value was from Rs. 1350. 00 to Rs. 13,800. 00. The copy of the notice is Annexure-1. The notice was never served upon the petitioner who was living in the House in question and who has purchased the house from Sri Abdul Rehman by registered sale deed dated 15-6-1996 for a sum of Rs. one lac and sixty thousand. Copyof the sale deed is appended as Annexure-2 with the writ petition. The petitioners claim is that in view of the provisions contained in S. 68 (1) of the Cantonment Act, she being in actual occupation of the house as lessee was also entitled to notice which was never served upon her. She further asserted that she had no knowledge of the proceeding of the revision of the assessment list and it was only after finalisation of the proceedings, when bill of demand notice was served upon her on 28-7-1998 she immediately applied for the certified copy of the extract of the Assessment Register and got the appeal filed under S. 68 (4) of the Cantonment Act. An application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, was also filed. The aforesaid grounds were specifically taken up in the memo of appeal, but the appeal was dismissed. The assessment order arbitrarily enhanced the annual value from Rs. 1350 to Rs. 13,800/ -. ( 3 ) ). Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed Counter Affidavit. It is submitted in the Counter Affidavit that the House Tax under the Cantonment Act is assessed triennial in accordance with the provisions of Cantonment Act, 1924. The petitioner was tenant of the house in question at the rent of Rs. 1200. 00 per month. The public in general was given notice of the proceeding by publication in the local newspaper affixing the notice on conspicuous places in the Cantonment Area apart from dasti Notice; to the owner of the House. The petitioner who was one of the tenants in the building also got notice of the Cantonment Board in person regarding proceeding for assessment on behalf of the landlord and co-tenant and, neither she nor Abdul Rehman owner of the House nor any other tenant got notice for proposed increase of the house tax at the rate of Rs. 13,800. 00 per annum. Abdul Rehman was given notice dated 13-11-1994. The Assessment Committee decided objections in 23 meetings between 22/02/1996 and 6th of the November, 1996. The Assessment Committee for the purpose of assessment of the house tax takes into consideration the previous monthly/annual rental value of the property, the present amount of annual tax including water and property tax @ 18. 25 per cent. in accordance with S. 6 of the Cantonment Board Act and the amount of annual tax is assessed under S. 66 of the said Act. That since no objections were filed by Sri Abdul Rehman the final assessment of the house tax under S. 69 in respect of the property in dispute was assessed at the rate of Rs. 13,800. 00 p. a. i. e. on the admitted actual annual rent being paid at the relevant point of time. A list was prepared under S. 67 which was finalised and authenticated on 6-11-1996 and published in the newspaper on 8-11-1996 for information to the public including the objectors. 13,800. 00 p. a. i. e. on the admitted actual annual rent being paid at the relevant point of time. A list was prepared under S. 67 which was finalised and authenticated on 6-11-1996 and published in the newspaper on 8-11-1996 for information to the public including the objectors. That from perusal of Annexure-2, it was revealed that Sri Abdul Rehman executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 15-6-1996, but none of them was informed the Cantonment Board or the Assessment Committee about the sale/purchase of the house in question by Sale Deed dated 15-6-1996. The petitioner also did not get her name mutated in the records of the Cantonment Board as owner. It was stated that it is wrong to say that the petitioner was tenant in the house at the rate of Rs. 12. 00 per month since last more than 20 years. Prior to 1993, no tenant was shown in the building as per the Cantonment Record. The annual value of the house was, therefore, assessed only at the rate of Rs. 1350. 00 per annum. At the presents house No. 72 consists of four big rooms, Verandah, Latrine, Kitchen, Bathroom with marble tiles flooring. The house has been rightly assessed as having rental value of Rs. 1150. 00 per month. It is further stated that the notice of the assessment was given to the public in general by publication in newspaper and personally also through peon, to all the owners of house. ( 4 ) ). Sri K. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J. N. Tewari, learned counsel for the respondents have been heard at length. ( 5 ) ). The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the provisions of S. 68 (1) of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (hereinafter called as the Act) before revision of the assessment a notice in writing of the revision was required to be given to both the owner as well as to the lessee or occupier of the property. It is submitted that in the instant case, it is not disputed that at the relevant time the petitioner was one of the lessees of the building in question and no revision of assessment could have been done without service of a notice upon the petitioner. It is submitted that admittedly no notice was served upon the petitioner. It is submitted that in the instant case, it is not disputed that at the relevant time the petitioner was one of the lessees of the building in question and no revision of assessment could have been done without service of a notice upon the petitioner. It is submitted that admittedly no notice was served upon the petitioner. ( 6 ) ). Sri Tewari, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3, however, submits that in view of the provisions contained in Section 65 of the Act primary duty or obligation for payment of tax is of the owner and in case the owner is not available only then the lessee is liable for payment of tax. He further submits that in no case the lessee or occupier of the building is liable for payment of tax. He again submits that public notice as required by S. 68 (1) of the Act was published in the local Daily Newspaper giving information about completion of revision of assessment. He further referred to the provisions of S. 73 of the Act which provides that "whenever the title of any person primarily liable for the payment of a tax on the annual value of any building or land to or over such building or land is transferred, the person whose title is transferred and the person to whom the same is transferred shall, within three months after the execution of the instrument of transfer or after its registration, if it is registered, or after the transfer is effected, if no instrument is executed, give notice of such transfer to the Executive Officer. It is submitted that even though transfer is effected in June, 1996, no intimation of transfer was given either by the owner or transferee viz. , the petitioner. Therefore, notice could not have been issued to the transferee. ( 7 ) ). For purposes of appreciating the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties it is necessary to reproduce sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 65, sub-section (1) of Section 68 and sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 73 of the Act which reads as follows :"65. Incidence of Taxation. ( 7 ) ). For purposes of appreciating the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties it is necessary to reproduce sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 65, sub-section (1) of Section 68 and sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 73 of the Act which reads as follows :"65. Incidence of Taxation. (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the notification imposing the tax, every tax (assessed) on the annual value of building or lands or of both shall be leviable primarily upon the actual occupier of the property upon which the said tax is assessed, if he is the owner of the buildings or lands or holds them on a building or other lease (granted by or on behalf of the Government or the Board) or on a building lease from any person. (3) On failure to recover any sum due on account of such tax from the person primarily liable, they may be recovered from the occupier of any part of the buildings or lands in respect of which the tax is due, such portion of the sum due as bears to the whole amount due the same ratio which the rent annually payable by such occupier bears to the aggregate amount of rent so payable in respect of the whole of the said buildings or lands, or to the aggregate amount of the letting value thereof, if any, stated in the authenticated assessment list. ""68. Revision of Assessment List. (1) The (Executive Officer) shall, at the same time, give public notice of a date, not less than one month thereafter (when the Board will proceed) to consider the valuations and assessments entered in the assessment list, and, in all cases in which any property is for the first time assessed or the assessment is increased, (the Executive Officer shall also give) written notice thereof to the owner and to any lessee or occupier of the property. ""73. Notice of Transfers. ""73. Notice of Transfers. (1) Whenever the title of any person primarily liable for the payment of a tax on the annual value of any building or land to or over such building or land is transferred, the person whose title is transferred and the person to whom the same is transferred shall, within three months after the execution of the instrument of transfer or after its registration, if it is registered, or after the transfer is effected, if no instrument is executed, give notice of such transfer to the Executive Officer. (4) Every person who makes a transfer as aforesaid without giving such notice to the Executive Officer shall continue liable for the payment of all taxes assessed on the property transferred until he gives notice or until the transfer has been recorded in the registers of the Board but nothing in this section shall be held to affect the liability of the transferee for the payment of the said tax. " ( 8 ) ). From perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 68 (or Section 65) of the Act it reveals that the tax assessed could primarily be leviable on the actual occupier of the pro-perty if he is owner of the building. To make the owner liable two conditions must be satisfied; one is that he should be in actual occupation of the property and secondly, he should be owner of the building. In the instant case, there is no dispute that at the time of the revision of the assessment the owner of the building was not in possession of the same. It is also not disputed that at therelevant time the petitioner was occupying the building. Therefore, in view of the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of Section 65 of the Act on failure to recover the sum due on account of the tax from the person primarily liable the recovery may be made froom the occupier of any part of the buildings and the tax shall be recovered proportionately in accordance with the portion of the building possessed by him. Therefore, it cannot be said that owner alone is liable for payment of tax and in given circumstances the tax can be recovered from the occupier. Therefore, it cannot be said that owner alone is liable for payment of tax and in given circumstances the tax can be recovered from the occupier. Besides this, for the purposes of the decision of the writ petition it is not necessary to consider the question as to who was liable for payment of tax. The question is whether the revision has been made after following procedure prescribed by law and whether the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 68 of the Act are mandatory. ( 9 ) ). Section 68 of the Act provides procedure which has to be followed before the revision of the assessment has to be made. The first requirement is that the Executive Officer shall give public notice of a date not less than one month thereafter when the Board will proceed to consider the valuations and assessments entered in the assessment list. The second requirement is that in all cases where the property is for the first time assessed or assessment is increased, the Executive Officer shall give notice in writing thereof, (a) the owner and (b) to any lessee or occupier of the property. In the instant case, there is no dispute that publication as required under condition-1 was made and the first requirement was fulfilled in the present case. There is dispute with regard to the second requirement having been complied with. Sri Tewari has vehemently argued that the words and between the words the owner and to say lessee should be read as or. I am not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents for the simple reason that the intention of the Section is very clear and the legislature never intended that the word and should be read as or. There was no need to use word or after words "to or any lessee". The intention of the legislature was that where the building is let out then in such a case both the owner as well as the lessee should be given notice of the revision of the assessment list. As already pointed out above in certain cases the lessee is also liable for payment of tax. Therefore, he was required to be heard before assessment is raised. As already pointed out above in certain cases the lessee is also liable for payment of tax. Therefore, he was required to be heard before assessment is raised. In my view, where there were owner as well as the lessee notice to both of them, in writing under Section 68 (1) of the Act was necessary. Taxing laws create liability. The provisions of the Act or a Section in an Act, providing for enhancement of tax or levying of tax have to be strictly construed and also have to be strictly followed. In the instant case, there is no dispute that no notice in writing as required by sub-section (1) of Section 68 of the Act was served upon the petitioner, who was at the relevant time only lessee of the building and not the owner. ( 10 ) ). Sri Tewari has then argued that a public notice by publication in the local Newspaper was given, it should be deemed as notice to the petitioner. This is not the intention of the legislature. The provisions, as pointed out above, has specifically provided that besides giving a public notice, notice in writing to the owner and to the lessee or occupier has to be given and compliance of any one of them is not sufficient compliance. ( 11 ) ). Sri Tewari then argued that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 73 were not complied with by the petitioner or the owner. The Board had no knowledge of the fact that the petitioner was lessee of the building and therefore, notice could not have been served upon her. I am not in agreement with this submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. It is admitted that at the time of earlier assessment in the year 1983 there was no occupier and the building was lying vacant. Accordingly the annual value of the building was assessed at Rs. 1350. 00. It was also stated in the counter affidavit that in the year 1996 when the assessment was done or in the year 1995 when the assessment was proposed to be revised, there was an occupier or tenant in the building who was paying the rent at the rate of Rs. 1200. 00 per month. In this view of the matter, it would not have been difficult for the Board-respondent to have found-out the name of the petitioner. 1200. 00 per month. In this view of the matter, it would not have been difficult for the Board-respondent to have found-out the name of the petitioner. In my view, the mandatory provisions of Section 68 (1) of the Act have not been complied with and the assessment order is not binding on the petitioner. ( 12 ) ). The petition is hereby allowed. The assessment order dated 6-11-96 as contained in Annexure-3 and order dated 6-4-98 passed in appeal by the appellate authorityare hereby quashed. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to proceed to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law after complying with the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. ( 13 ) ). No order as to costs. .