Krishnan Pandalai, J.
1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the order, dated 29th August, 1929, of the Bench Magistrates of Tiruvarur acquitting the respondents respectively the occupier and owner of premises within the Municipality of Tiruvarur, who were charged at the instance of the Municipality with having disobeyed a notice under Section 182(1) of the District Municipalities Act to remove certain alleged encroachments in front of the said premises. The Bench without going into the merits of the charge acquitted the respondents upon the ground that under Section 182 (1) of the District Municipalities Act notice to remove obstruction or encroachment can only be given to either the occupier or the owner but not to both. The Bench further held that the Municipality not having elected to proceed against the one or the other but having proceeded against both, the prosecution case failed. The only question in this appeal is whether this view is correct. In my view it is not. The only object of saying that the Chairman may require the owner or the occupier to remove encroachment: is to enlarge the class of persons against whom notice may be sent and not to restrict it. Either the owner may be proceeded against or the occupier or both. There is nothing in the use of the word 'or' in that section which restricts the Municipality to choosing one out of the two persons proceeded against. The order of acquittal of the Bench Magistrates is set aside and the case will go back to them for disposal according to law.