( 96 )
De Sam’ayoJ.
Wickrema-ntriya v.Ounaratne
line without the consent of the Board. The latter section, takenby itseli, would have included buildings whether on new sites orold; but it was held that it must be read with the previous section,and that it was confined to buildings erected on new and hithertovacant ground. Lord Auckland «. Westminster Board of Works;1Wendon v. London County Council.* Accordingly, I think section15 (1) of the Ordinance in question is confined to buildings “ con-structed ” under the provisions of the previous sections of the samechapter, and is inapplicable to buildings to which the latter sectionsdid not apply. The accused had, as already stated, obtainedpermission under the Local Boards Ordinance, 1898, for theerection of the whole block of buildings, and partly completed thesame before the coming into operation of the Housing and TownImprovement Ordinance, 1915, and, in my opinion, the responsibilityof the accused in respect of the occupation of the buildings cannot,be regulated by the latter Ordinance.
For these reasons I think the conviction is erroneous in point oflaw. It is therefore set aside.
Set aside.
1L.B.7 Ch. 597.
* (1894) IQ B. 812.