Patkar, J - (1.)In this case, the accused was convicted under Secs.471 and 249 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act for not complying with the requisition for providing a sufficient number of water- closets or latrines or privies and urinals for persons employed as workmen or labourers in his premises.
(2.)It is urged on behalf of the applicant that there was already sufficient privy accommodation in premises No. 149 B, that godown in No. 149 B, which was contiguous to the shop building, was comprised in the premises No. 149 B, therefore, the case fell under Section 248 and not under Section 249 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, and as there was no sanction by the Standing Committee as provided by Section 248, the notice was ultra vires and illegal.
(3.)Section 247 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act refers to buildings intended for human habitation, or at or in which labourers or workmen are to be employed, Secs.248 and 249 refer to premises. The words "premises" and "buildings" have been defined in the Act but the definitions are inclusive, and do not bear on the point which we have to consider, It is urged on behalf of the applicant that the shop and godown buildings were constructed in 1917 under one plan, and therefore they constituted one premises for which there was a sufficient accommodation of privies provided when the building was erected. It is suggested that the word "premises" means buildings which are contiguous to each other and owned by one private person. That definition is not supported by any of the provisions of the Municipal Act. On the other hand, in Section 234(b), the word "building" is used as distinct from "premises" and the word "premises" is used to signify something appurtenant to the building newly erected or rebuilt. The meaning of the word "premises" is discussed in Municipality of Bombay V/s. Shapurji Dinsha (1895) I.L.R. 20 Bom. 617, 625 where it is held that the word "premises" is used in different senses in different sections and is not used throughout the Act in one and the same sense, and that its sense has to be determined in connection with the context. It is further held in that case that Section 243 refers to buildings for private residence, and Section 249 be buildings intended for public use. It is suggested that the authority of the ruling is weakened on account of the subsequent amendment of the section, The additional words which find place in the amended Section 248 are "employed in any premises," and it is suggested that these words are inconsistent with the restriction of the application of the section to a private residence. I think that the words "persons employed in any premises" might be construed as referring to the servants who are employed in the private residence, whereas Section 249 refers exclusively to a market, railway station, dock, wharf or other place of public resort or a place in which persons exceeding twenty in number are employed in any manufacture, trade or business or as workmen or labourers. It appears from the evidence that in the godown, with which we are concerned in No. 149 B, more than twenty persons are employed as workmen or labourers. It is clear, therefore that the provisions of Section 249 would apply to the godown in No. 149 B.