W. Broome, J. - (1.) MAM Chand, the applicant in this criminal revision, was convicted by a first class Magistrate of Saharanpur for an offence under Section 299 of the Municipalities Act and was fined Rs. 200. In appeal the Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge of Saharanpur altered the conviction into one under bye -law 11 of the bye -laws framed by the Saharanpur Municipal Board for the Regulation and Control of Power Driven Kolhus but maintained the fine.
(2.) THE applicant is the proprietor of the Lakshmi Oil Mill and has set up a power driven oil -crusher in the premises of the mill. According to the prosecution, he has thereby infringed bye -law No. 6, which runs as follows: The premises in which any 'Kolhu' or Oil Crusher is installed shall be pucca in construction and strong enough to stand the forces of vibration of the mechanical powers used for running the machinery thereof, and shall not adjoin any premises used for residential purposes other than those occupied by the owner or the manager of the oil mill, unless a written consent of both the owner and the occupier of the adjoining premises has been previously obtained and filed with the application for licence. The applicant's mill is surrounded on three sides by dwelling houses and the applicant has failed to obtain the written consent of the owners and occupiers of the adjoining premises before installing his oil crusher , as required by the above quoted bye -law.
(3.) THE first argument advanced on behalf of the applicant is that the word "premises" used in the bye law in question means only the particular room or enclosure in which the oil crusher is installed and does not include other parts of the building outside that particular room or enclosure. In the present instance the oil -crusher has been fitted up in an inner room which is surrounded by either rooms also belonging to the applicant; and it is argued that as these "premises" in which the oil crusher stands do not adjoin any premises other than those occupied by the owner or the manager of the mill there was no necessity to obtain any one's consent for the installation of the machine. I am not prepared, however, to accept this restricted interpretation of the word "premises" in the context in which it is used here the word obviously suggests something wider and more comprehensive than a there single room or enclosure and would normally be interpreted as referring to the entire building occupied by the accused applicant's oil mill. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines "premises" (in the sense with which we are concerned) as "a house or building with its grounds or other appurtenances"; and there can be no justification for restricting the meaning of the word in the manner suggested by the applicant.;