AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Somasundaram, J.
The petitioner herein stands convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- for constructing as building without obtaining the license from the Municipality. His contention is that he has not constructed any building but that he has merely put up some pillars. Building as defined in Clause (3) of S.3 of the Madras District Municipalities Act includes a house, out house, stable, latrine, shed, hat, wall (other than a boundary wall net exceeding eight feet in height) and any other such structure, whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or any other material whatsoever. What is a ''building'' must always be a question of degree and circumstances; its ordinary and usual meaning is, a block of brick or stone work, covered in by a roof (per Esher, M.K. Moir v. Willams 1892 I Q.B.264, In Stevens v. Gourtey (1860) I L. W. 33 (B), a wooden superstructure which was 16 ''x 13.8'' was held to be a building. The petitioner as D. W. 1 admits that he had put up thatches over the masonry pillars erected in the place. He further admits that he applied to the Municipality for a licence for the construction of this building and that this licence was not issued. Thus there is no substance in the contention that he has not put up any building. The conviction is correct.
The sentence is not excessive. Both are confirmed. The revision falls and the same is dismissed.