BASNAYAKK J.—Canagasinghani v. Urban Council, Trineomalee
1948Present : Basnayake J.
UANAGASIXGHAM, Appellant, anl URBAN COUNCIL,TRINCOMALEE, Respondent
■S’. C. 693—M. C. Trincom alee, 521
Housing and Town Im-prooements Ordinance—Building of external wall—Notconnected with building—-No offence—Section 6 (2) (a) and 6 (1).
The building of a wall across one’s land is not an infringement of section6 < 1) of the Sousing and Town Improvements Ordinance. What thatsection prohibits is the construction of an external or party wall in anybuilding.
./^.PPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate, Trincomalee.
H. W. Tambiah, with S. Sharvananda, for the accused, appellant.
<S. A. Rajaratnam, for the complainant, respondent.
September 29, 1948. Basnayake J.—
The accused-appellant is charged with committing a breach of section6 (1) of the Housing and Town Improvements Ordinance, in that he didconstruct an “ external party wall ” to the building occupied by him,viz., No. 5, Main Street, Trincomalee. He has been found guilty of thecharge and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10. This appeal is from thatconviction and sentence.
Shortly the facts are as follows. Between the house occupied by theappellant and another building known as the Mansion Hotel, owned byone Balasubramaniam, there is a plot of bare land which is owned by theappellant. On or about February 21, 194=8, the appellant bruit a wallacross the space between his building and the Mansion Hotel, dividingthe bare land in two. This wall was at first so short as to be not evennoticeable. It was gradually raised by the appellant till it came to a stagewhen it began to be a source of inconvenience to the owner of MansionHotel, who complains that rain water falls on the wall and beats intohis building, and that the wall also interferes with a window of his.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has notcommitted the offence with whieh he is charged. Section 6 (1) of theHousing and Town Improvements Ordinance prohibits the alteration ofany building in any one of the ways specified in section 6 (2). The wallthat the appellant has erected does not in my view come within any ofthe items in section 6 (2). The allegation in the charge is that theappellant made the alteration contemplated in section 6 (2) (a). Themere construction of an external wall is not a contravention of section6 (1). What the section prohibits is the construction of an external orparty wall in any building. The wall the appellant has constructed hasnothing to do with his building save that it touches it. An examinationof section 6 (2) reveals that the object of the legislation is to prohibitunauthorised alterations of buildings unless they are done according toapproved plans.
NAG AI.INGAM J.—Sammy Sinyho v. Henry Silva
On the facts in this case I am satisfied iJhat the appellant has not madean alteration to a building. The law does not prohibit the constructionof a wall across one’s land. No other provision of the Housing and TownImprovements Ordinance has been cited to me as prohibiting the act ofthe appellant. The finding of the learned Magistrate cannot thereforebe sustained.
The conviction and sentence are set aside and the accused is acquitted.
CABAGASINGHAM, Appellant, and URBAN COUNCIL, TRINCOMALEE, Respondent