lo act strictly in accordance v'ith lhe slatutory provisions. Thus, when sub-section (5) of Section l0 mandates giving notice ofan order under the said sub-section to lhe person in possession, the some is requiretl to be complied rvirh in its true letter and spirit. Considering the noture o.[ rights involved, mere i.ssuance of notice rithout sen,ite thereol, cannot be suid to be due compliance x'ith lhe provisions oJ the stdute. Besides, the provisions of subsection (6) ofSection ]0 cun he resorted to only if the person fails to usmply with an order under sub-section (5) thereof v,irhin u period q/ thirry days of sarvice of n<ttice. tlence. possession cannot be taken ovcr under Section l0(61 of the Act, 1976 unless a period of thirty days from the date of service of notice has elapsed. In absence of sertice oJ notice undcr sub-.sectktn (5) of Section 10, there will be no sturting point for culculating the period oJ' thirty days. In other u,ords. time v'ill not slurt running, hence the question of tdking over possession under sub-saction (6.1 o/ Section l0 ofthe Act, 1976 will not arise at all. ln lhis view oJ the matter, in the clse on hand, it was not open to the respondent aulhorities to rasort to the provisions ofsub-section (61 qfSection 10 o.l the Act. 1976 without lirst strictly cotnplyingtvithlhe provisions of sub-sectiotr(5) thereof. Hence, such dction being in controvention 4'the stotutory provisiotts cannot be sustained and deserves to be struck down.
