Emperor Vs. Kallianji Vardhaman

city of bombay municipality act (bom. act iii of 1888), section 349b-height of buildings, raising of-addition of bath rooms on the top of the rear of an existing building.;the applicant added small bath rooms to the third and fourth floors of an old residential house in the city of bombay, in such a way that the added rooms fell below the original height of the house. he was convicted of in fringing the provisions of section 349b of the city of bombay municipal act, 1888. on an application under revisional jurisdiction:-;reversing the conviction, that the accused was outside the purview of section 349 of the act, inasmuch as he had neither erected nor raised a building within the meaning of the section. - section 31(4) (since repealed) :[tarun chatterjee & h.l.dattu, jj] jurisdiction of high court - respondent, a government company, chartered appellants vessel to carry rock phosphate from togo to west coast india - dispute arose between parties - under agreement, respondent had chosen mumbai as port of delivery vessel carrying rock phosphate was delivered at port of bombay - application filed by respondent earlier before delhi high court for appointment of certain individual as arbitrator had become infructuous because of his demise held, high court of bombay, is not correct in rejecting arbitration petition filed by appellant on ground of lack of jurisdiction. - not only do these bath rooms fall short of the pre-existing height of the house, but in the horizontal plane they also fail to extend so far sideways as to intersect the imaginary 45 line referred to in the proviso to the section.batchelor, j.1. the applicant before us has been convicted of infringing the provisions of section 349b of the city of bombay municipal act, 1888 and the only question is whether those provisions have or have not been infringed by him.2. the facts, which are undisputed, are that the applicant has added small bath rooms to the third and fourth floors of an old residential house in the city. it appears to me that in these-circumstances section 349b is of no application. that section regulates the height to which a building may be erected or raised. the word ' building' is explained by an inclusive definition in. clause (s) of section 3 of the act where it is said to include 'a house, out house, stable, shed, hut and every other such structure, whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or any other material whatever.' in my opinion where, as here, you have a substantial residential house, the house as a whole must be-regarded as the building referred to in section 349b and it is not possible, without unduly straining the wording of the section to construe the word 'building' there as denoting some small portion of the whole house, such as an outlying bath room. if that is the true meaning of the word 'building' occurring in the section, then admittedly the applicant has not erected this building at the only material time; for it was erected long before the coming into force of this act. indeed it is common ground that the building, as it now stands, could not legitimately be built in its present form. but if the applicant has not erected this house or building within the meaning of the section, neither has he raised it in my opinion. for the bath rooms now added fall below the original height of the house or building. that i take it is the height referred to in the section and that is unaffected by the addition of the bath rooms. not only do these bath rooms fall short of the pre-existing height of the house, but in the horizontal plane they also fail to extend so.....