( 57 )
Present: Branch C.J.MUTTETUWAGAiVIA r. SILVA.
074—P. C. Ratnapiira, 30,307,
Tkorottghfarcs Ordinance—Commence a building along a thoroughfare
Notice to Chairman, District Committee—Ordinance No. 10 of1861, s. 86.
A person who puts up a new building on old foundations along athoroughfare, is .bound to give notice to the Chairman of theDistrict Committee, in terms of section 86 of the ThoroughfaresOrdinance, No. 10 of 1861.
Ahamah r. Goonncardenc 1 considered.
PPEAL by the Solicitor-General from an order acquitting therespondent.
NavarainamC.C.: for appellant.
December lo, 1925. Branch C.J.—
The respondent was charged under section 86 of the ltoad'Ordinance, 1861, as amended by section 2 of Ordinance No. 6 of1913 with commencing to build a boutique room along a thoroughfarewithout giving one calendar month’s previous notice in writing tothe Chairman of the District Committee. The evidence shows thatthe house was practically rebuilt by the accused, having been damagedby the floods. He replaced the wooden pillars with brick pillars anclrepaired the walls with wattle and daub and planks. The .housewas rebuilt on the old foundations and remains of the same size asthe old building, which had been about thirty years on the spot.The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent, giving as hisreason that lie thought it doubtful whether the act of the respondentcame within the section in question. He thought that the sectionj elates “ to buildings about to be commenced, and not to repairs toexisting buildings, except in so far as temporary fences and enclosuresare made use of for the purposes of such repairs.”
In Ahamah v. Gooncivardene (supra), which came before Middle-ton J., in 1910, the facts were as follows: —The appellant bad raisedby means of pillars the roof of his house which was along the publicroad; he had not commenced an entirely new building. The sectionwhich Middleton J. had to consider, namely, section 86 of OrdinanceNo. 10 of 1861, corresponds, so far as is material for the purposesof this case, to the section as it now exists. Middleton J. held that
1 (1910) 51Sal. 105.
( 58 )
the raising of the roof by means of pillars came within the words“ commence any building.” So far as I am aware the conclusionarrived at in that case has never been questioned, but I desire toguard myself by saying that I do not adopt the reasoning usedby Middleton J. I prefer to decide the case before me on itsown facts.
In the present case the respondent has really put up a new building,using the old foundations, and I think that this may fairly be said tocome within the enactment in question.
I reverse the order of acquittal and find the respondent guilty, andsentence him to pay a fine of Re. 1, and in default three days’ simpleimprisonment. I have made the fine purely nominal, as there is noreason to think that the respondent would not have given the noticeif he had known it was necessary.
MUTTETUWAGAMA v. SILVA