JUDGMENT : A short legal question – but with substantial import – has been urged for resolution by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. He predicates, with great vehemence, that before an unlawful building/structure is sought to be demolished by a Local Self Government Institution, not merely its owner but the persons in possession of the same, either as tenant/s or otherwise, also have a statutory right to be notified and to be served with a provisional order under the applicable provisions of the statute. 2. The petitioner, who claims to be a tenant of a building called 'Govind Arcade' on a road leading from Nellayi Junction to Vailoor, has approached this Court impugning Ext.P2 notice issued by the 1st respondent Secretary of Parappukkara Grama Panchayat, asserting that it has been issued without jurisdiction and in violation of the provisions of Section 235W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). 3. The petitioner alleges that the Panchayat has issued the impugned order apparently as a final one under the provisions of Section 235W(2) of the Act, and that this has been done without first issuing a provisional order and without hearing him. He says that this is completely and wholly illegal and therefore, that Ext.P2 be set aside. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Grama Panchayat submits that Ext.P2 has been issued to the landlord of the premises, namely, the 3rd respondent herein and that he has accepted the same without challenging it. She, therefore, asserts that this writ petition is not maintainable at the hands of a tenant, who is now in illegal occupation of the same -the tenancy agreement between him and the landlord having now allegedly expired. She thus prays that this writ petition be dismissed. 5. I notice that the specific contention of the petitioner, as voiced by his learned counsel - Sri.Vysakh Vijayan, is that under the mandate of Section 235W(1) of the Act, the Secretary of the Panchayat can seek demolition or alteration of the building, which is found to have violated the provisions of the Building Rules, only after making a provisional order requiring the owner or “the person for whom the work is done” to demolish the offending structure. He says that in this case, before issuing Ext.P2, such a provisional order had not been issued nor his client had been afforded an opportunity of being heard, contrary to the requirement of the aforementioned Section. He contends that, going by the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 235W, this is indubitable because it is mandated therein that a notice be issued to the owner or “the person for whom such work is done”, clearly indicating that even a tenant has a right to be heard. 6. Before I endeavour to answer the afore contentions of the petitioner, a reading of the applicable provisions of Section 235W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act becomes necessary. I, therefore, extract Sections 235W(1)(iii) and 235W(2) as under: “235W.Demolition or alteration of building works unlawfully commenced, carrying on or completed.- (1) Where the Secretary is satisfied that- (iii) any alteration of or addition to any building or any other work made or done for any purpose in or upon any building has been commenced or is being carried on or has been completed in contravention of the provisions of Section 235-V, he may make a provisional order requiring the owner or the person for whom the work is done, to demolish the work done, or any part of it as, in the opinion of the Secretary, has been unlawfully executed or to make such alteration as may be necessary to bring the work in conformity with the provisions of this Act, bye-laws, rules, direction, order or requisition as aforesaid or with the plans and specifications on which such permission or decision was based, and may also direct that until the said order is complied with, the owner or such person shall refrain from proceeding with the work: Provided that the Secretary may, on realisation of a compounding fee as may be fixed by Government, regularise any construction, re construction, or alteration of the building, commenced, carried on or completed without getting a plan approved by the Secretary or in deviation of the plan approved by him, if such construction or alteration of the building does not contravene any of the criteria or specifications mentioned in the Act or the rules made thereunder. (2) The Secretary shall serve a copy of the provisional order made under sub-section (1) on the owner or the person for whom such work is done together with a notice requiring him to show cause within a reasonable time, to be specified in such notice, why the order should not be confirmed.” As is without doubt from the afore-extracted provisions, demolition or alteration of a building unlawfully commenced, carried on or completed, is permitted by the provisions of Section 235W only after a Provisional Order and a subsequent Final Order is made on the owner or the person for whom the work is done. While the petitioner contends that 'the person for whom the work is done' construes to be the person in possession of the property, either as an owner or as a tenant, the Panchayat takes the stand that this means only a person who acts on behalf of the owner or one who is authorised by him. 7. There can hardly be any doubt that the true purpose behind these provisions is that the owner or the person who causes unlawful construction must be properly notified before any action for its demolition under Section 235W is proceeded with, so as to obtain full compliance of the pristine principles of natural justice. The axiomatic question, therefore, is whether a person occupying an unauthorised building as a tenant under its owner must be deemed to be 'a person for whom the work is done' and that such person also be served a Provisional Order for its demolition before a Final Order is issued. 8. When one reads the afore provisions closely, it is rather inescapable that this was never the intention of the law makers since the primary responsibility of any unlawful construction is on the owner of the building or the person who has caused it to be done. Therefore, when the owner is sufficiently notified and issued with a Provisional Order as per law, it would be statutorily unnecessary for the tenant to be separately notified or issued with such order before final demolition proceedings are taken forward by the Panchayat. 9. Therefore, when the owner is sufficiently notified and issued with a Provisional Order as per law, it would be statutorily unnecessary for the tenant to be separately notified or issued with such order before final demolition proceedings are taken forward by the Panchayat. 9. This becomes unequivocally explicit because the afore extracted provisions provide that the owner or the person for whom the work is done must be served with a Provisional Order, clearly indicating that it is either the owner or the person, who has caused it to be done, requires to be so served and not both. If it were otherwise, instead of the word or the word and would have been used, thus enjoining the Secretary of the Panchayat to issue the Provisional and Final Orders on both such persons. The conspicuous use of the word or would make it irrefutable that what is intended is that it is only in the absence of the owner or when the illegal work is done without his knowledge or permission, need any other person be issued with such proceedings. I cannot, therefore, find the contention of the petitioner to be worthy of acceptance and therefore, repel the same. 10. The above said, in this particular case, I notice that the landlord has already initiated action against the petitioner for evicting him from the building in question and it is certain, therefore, that their relationship is extremely strained. It is possible, therefore, that the landlord has chosen not to challenge Ext.P2; and I am consequently of the view that this is an eminently fit case, especially because even the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat is unable to inform if any provisional order had been initially issued, to direct the concerned Authority to hear the petitioner, also, but solely in view of the peculiar facts involved herein, before further action pursuant to Ext.P2 is taken. Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, though he does not obtain any vested right under the statutory provisions of Section 235W of the Act for such an opportunity, but to enable him to convince the said Authority that no illegal or unlawful constructions have been made in the building in question as also to allay his apprehension that due process has not been followed; and then take a final decision as to the course of action to be adopted pursuant to Ext.P2, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, until such time as the afore directed exercise is completed, all action consequent to Ext.P2 will stand deferred; and will, thereafter, be taken forward only based on the decision to be taken by the Secretary in terms of this judgment.