CURRIMBHOY EBRAHIM Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case stated for the opinion of the Court under Order XXXVI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The plaintiffs are the lessees of a piece of land situate at Wodehouse Bridge Road, and the defendants are the Municipal Commissioner for the City of Bombay and the Municipal Corporation of the City.

(2.) The plaintiffs, being minded to build residential chambers on their land, notified the defendants of their intention and submitted for approval the requisite plans and specifications. Objection was taken by the Municipality that the construction of some of the water-closets violated the provision of Clause (a) of Section 251-A of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888, as amended by Act V of 1905. That clause runs as follows: No person shall build a privy or water-closet in such a position or manner as to be directly over OF directly under any room or part of a building other than another privy or water-closet or a bathing place, bathroom terrace.

(3.) In order to meet this objection the plaintiffs made certain alterations in their plans, which, they submitted, were now outside the prohibition contained in the clause, but the defendants maintained their original objection. The question before us is whether that objection is good in law, and the answer turns on the meaning to be given to the word "directly" in the clause. The plaintiffs contend that the words "directly over or directly under" mean not only vertically over or under, but also immediately over or under, so that in effect a water-closet may be built so as to be vertically over or under any part of a building provided that a bath-room intervenes. The defendants, on the other hand, put a wider construction on the clause and submit that the words directly over, or directly under mean "in a direct line vertically at any height above or any depth below."