( 156 )
Present : De Sampayo J.
WICKRAMASURIYA v. PERERA.
777—P. C. .Kalutara, 3,523.
Alteration of building withpermission of Chairman, Local Board—
Passing of the Housing and Town Improvement Ordinance—Freshpermission unnecessary.
Theaccused obtained permissionfrom the Chairman, Local
Board, for alteration of a building, and carried on the buildingoperations after the Ordinance came into force.
Held, that a fresh approval of the Chairman, tinder section 10 of.the Ordinance, was not necessary.
rJ1 HE .facts are set, out in the judment.
Weeraratne, for accused, appellant:
Grenier, O.G., for plaintiff, respondent.
October 8, 1917. De Sampayo J.—
This is a prosecution under section 18 (1) of the Housing andTown Improvement Ordinance, 1915, for making an alteration ina building without the written consent of the Chairman, in.contraven-tion of section 10 of the Ordinance. The accused obtained therequisite permission from the Chairman, under the Local BoardOrdinance, in 1914, before the enactment of the Housing and TownImprovement Ordinance, and he has since carried on buildingoperations. The alleged offence is the continuation of the buildingworks after the latter Ordinance came into operation, the standpointof the prosecution being that the accused required a fresh approvalor consent from the Chairman under section 10 of this Ordinance.It is very questionable whether such continuation is an “alteration”of the building within the meaning of section 10 of' the Ordinance,as the prosecution contends. Apart from that question, however, Imay say that in P. C. Kalutara, No. 44,552, which was a prosecutionor allowing a building to be occupied in contravention of section 15,and which was decided by me on September 26, 1917, I stated myreasons for holding that the whole chapter of this Ordinance, inwhich provisions relating to buddings are contained, was inapplicableto buildings sanctioned and commenced under the previously existinglaw. That decision applies to this case with equal force. I mayalso refer to Hubbard v. Bromley District Council.1 This series of
i (1905) 69 J. P. 437.
( 157 )
reports is not available to me, but Scholefields's Encyclopaedia of Looal 1M7.'Government Law, vol. 77., p. 55, gives a note of the decision, to the Deeffect that buildings in course of erection when by-laws came intoJ. .. t
force were not subject to the by-laws as regards works carried outwickrama-
on them after the by-laws came into operation.mmyav.
In my opinion the charge cannot be sustained. The convictionis set aside.
WICKRAMASURIYA v. PERERA