EMPEROR Vs. RAMCHANDRA BHASKAR MANTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law before us arising on this rule is as to the meaning of the words " owners of the several premises," occurring in Section 305 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act (Bombay Act III of 1888).

(2.) The question arises under the following circumstances :- One Zaoba parcelled out certain land belonging to him in plots for building purposes and gave each plot on lease for a fixed term (30 years). Each lessee erected on his plot a building at his own expense. The petitioner before us is one of those lessees. There is a private street adjoining the plots and it was with reference to it that the Municipal Commissioner of Bombay called upon the lessees, the petitioner included, to level, metal, drain and light the said street on the ground that they were "owners of the several premises fronting or adjoining" it within the meaning of Section 305 of the Act. They having refused to comply with the requisition, the Commissioner filed a complaint against them in the Presidency Magistrate's Court charging them under Section 471 of the Act with failure to comply with the requisition. The lessees contended that they were not "owners of the several premises" and that it was their leter, the owner of the land, who was legally liable to perform the work required by the Commissioner under Section 305. The Chief Presidency Magistrate overruled that contention and convicted the lessees. Hence this rule.

(3.) The City of Bombay Municipal Act defines the word "owner" but is silent as to the meaning to be attached to the word " premises", though that word occurs frequently in the Act. And, as was pointed out by Ranade J. in Municipality of Bombay V/s. Shapurji Dinsha (1895) I.L.R. 20 Bom. 617, the word is used in different senses, in "different sections, in some meaning land, in some signifying buildings, and in others including both land and buildings. We must, therefore, see in what sense the word is used in Section 305 of the Act.