005-NLR-NLR-V-10-ANDERSON-v.-SEGU-MOHIDEEN.pdf
( 28 )
1906,
November 16.
Present: Mr. Justice Middleton.
ANDERSON v. SEGU MOHIDEEN.M. C., Colombo, 9,144
Suffering premises to be in a filthy condition—Liability ■ of owner or lesseenot living on the premises—Requisites of proof—Notice in Writing-Ordinance No. 15 of 1862, s. 1 (1).
Held, thatbefore an ownerora lessee who does notliveonthe
premises can be convicted of keeping or suffering the premises tobe in a filthy and unwholesome state under sub-section (1) ofsection 1 ofOrdinanceNo. 15of1862, it must be proved(1)thatthe '
premises were in afilthy andunwholesome condition, (2)thatthe
owner knewor wasapprizedofthat fact, and (3) thatinspite of
such knowledge he neglected to put them in a proper sanitarycondition.,*-
Held, also, that the notice to the owner or lessee need not be inwriting.
A
PPEAL from a conviction under sub-section (l) of section 1 ofOrdinance No. 15 of 1862.
The facts and arguments material to the report- appear in thejudgment. .
Elliott, for the accused, appellant.
F. J. de Saram, for the complainant, respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
16th November, 1906. Middleton J.—
In the present case the accused has been convicted under sub-section (1) of section 1 of Ordinance No. 15 oi 1862, that he. beingthe owner of premises bearing assessment No. 37, Ward Place,within the Municipality of Colombo, did on ttie 11th day of; September, 1906, keep or suffer the same to be in a~filthy andunwholesome state. The accused appeals against that judgmenton the. ground that he had not received a written notice. to theeffect that the premises were in a filthy and unwholesome state, asalleged by the Inspector of Nuisances. The appeal is based on ajudgment of mine, founded on the ruling of the Supreme Courtin Blacker v. Sazbo (1). I am not aware that either in my own judg-ment or in the judgment of the Supreme Court there appears.any observation which would warrant the inference that a noticein writing is considered necessary. The notice in writing, would^unquestionably be the better means of formally conveying the
(1) 2 Balasingham 13.
( 29 )
information ft> the accused, but, so far as my opinion is concerned,I should say that if it were proved that the Inspector hadbrought the matter verbally to the notice of the owner, thatwould be sufficient. In the present case the accused ischarged as a lessee or pro tanto owner with keeping or suffer-ing his premises to be in an unwholesome or filthy condition onthe 11th day of September. The evidence on the reoord onlyshows that on that date the Inspector found the premises in that•condition and told the defendant so, which the defendant denies,and consequently there is only oath against oath' on the point olnotice. The meaning put by this Court on the word “ suffer ** inthe case alluded to shows that it is necessary that evidence shouldbe given that an owner, knowing or having reason to know that hispremises were in the alleged state, neglected within reasonable timeto put them in a proper sanitary condition. If an Inspector■of Nuisances is desirous of bringing an owner not occupyingthe premises as an offender within the terms of the Ordinance,it seems to’me that it will be necessary for him to prove, first, thatthe premises were in a filthy and unwholesome condition when hevisited, that he acquainted the owner with that fact, or that theowner knew of that fact, and that in spite of the knowledge whichwas so given to or existed in the accused, he had neglected to putthem in a proper sanitary condition. If the defendant was notaware that his premises were in the state alleged by the Inspector on11th September, he can hardly be said to have suffered them to bein that condition on that date. There is nothing however to preventhis being prosecuted for an offence under the section on 24thSeptember, if there is evidence*to warrant it. I regret to say, onthe face of this record, I am unable to find the evidence which would,I think, warrant me in affirming the conviction.
I must therefore set aside the conviction and acquit the accused.In revising my judgment I have elaborated it slightly for thepurpose of making it more useful to the. Police Court.
Conviction set aside.
1906.
November 16*
Middleton
J.