JUDGMENT H.P. Asthana, J. - This is an application in revision by one Smt. Champa Kuer who has been convicted u/s 186 of the U.P. Municipalties Act, 1916, and Section 79 of the Town Improvement Act, 1919, and has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 300/-, and in default to 1 month's simple imprisonment. 2. It appears that the applicant has got a house No. K-28/47 in Mohalla Govindji Naik, P.S. Kotwali, Banaras. She purchased this house on 22nd August, 1952 for Rs. 25,000/-. At the time of the purchase it was a 4-storied house abutting on the public road. She made an application on 24th September, 1952 for making certain repairs in this house and the necessary sanction was accorded to her oh 30th October, 1952. On 18th December, 1952 the Overseer of the Improvement Trust submitted a report that the applicant had made five new rooms on the fourth storey and one room was under construction towards the lane; that these constructions were unauthorised as no permission had been obtained in respect of them. On receipt of this report notice was issued to the applicant on 29th December, 1952 to stop the constructions and to show cause within seven days as to why she had made unauthorised constructions. After this notice she made further constructions of which a fresh report was submitted by the Overseer on 27th March, 1953. A fresh notice was given to her on 4th April, 1953 in which reference was also made to the notice which had already been given to her before and with which she had not complied. On 4th June, 1953 the Secretary of the Improvement Trust filed a complaint against the applicant. 3. The applicant denied that she had made any new constructions in the house. Her case was that she had made only minor alterations in the existing constructions and had, therefore, not committed any breach of any of the provisions or bye laws of the Municipalities Act. 4. The learned Magistrate, however, found that from the prosecution evidence it was clearly proved that the, rooms in the fourth storey had been newly built after demolishing the old constructions; that a chabutra towards, the lane and some sunshades had been newly built for which no permission had been obtained. On these findings he convicted and sentenced the applicant. 4. The learned Magistrate, however, found that from the prosecution evidence it was clearly proved that the, rooms in the fourth storey had been newly built after demolishing the old constructions; that a chabutra towards, the lane and some sunshades had been newly built for which no permission had been obtained. On these findings he convicted and sentenced the applicant. The applicant went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Banaras. He agreed with the findings of the trial court that the constructions were new and unauthorised and therefore upheld her conviction and sentence. 5. It was contended on behalf of the applicant that there was no satisfactory evidence on the record that the applicant had demolished her old rooms in the fourth storey and in place of them had built new rooms. It was argued that only the roofing had been changed of the old rooms. The evidence of the Trust Overseer, Sri P.K Mukerji, however, shows that the applicant had made new rooms in the fourth storey. It was contended that the evidence of Sri Mukerji was not supported by the evidence of Sri P.N. Vohra who was deputed later on to inspect the disputed constructions. Sri Vohra no doubt in his report did not mention anything about the constructions in the fourth storey. He referred to certain other constructions which had been made subsequently by the applicant. It was argued that if the constructions in the fourth storey were new Sri Vohra would have also made a report about it when he made the inspection. It appears that Sri Vohra was not specially asked to report about the constructions in the fourth storey but about the other constructions and it was for this reason that in his report he did not make any mention of the constructions in the fourth storey. Sri Vohra, however, was not questioned in his cross-examination whether the constructions in the fourth storey were new or old. The applicant did not go in the witness-box nor produced any evidence to rebut the evidence of Sri Mukerji that the constructions in dispute were new. In absence of any evidence on behalf of the applicant I see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Sri Mukerji that the constructions in the fourth storey are new. The applicant did not go in the witness-box nor produced any evidence to rebut the evidence of Sri Mukerji that the constructions in dispute were new. In absence of any evidence on behalf of the applicant I see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Sri Mukerji that the constructions in the fourth storey are new. It appears that the applicant obtained permission only to make certain minor alterations in the existing constructions but instead of conforming with the permission given to her she demolished the old constructions in the fourth storey and made new ones in their place which were unauthorised. 6. It was next contended that as no construction had been made on the ground floor which abuts on the public road she had not contravened any provision of the Municipalities Act. 7. Section 178, Sub-section (1), of the Municipalities Act provides that before beginning within the limits of the municipality to erect a new building or new part of a building, or to re-erect or make a material alteration in a building, or to make or enlarge a wall, a person shall give notice of his intention to the Board. Sub-section (2) provides that the notice referred to in Sub-section (1) required in the case of building shall only be necessary where the building abuts on or is adjacent to a public street or place, or property vested in the magistrate or in the Board, unless by a bye law applicable to the area in which the building is situated the necessity of giving notice is extended to all buildings. Sub-section (3) provides that an alteration in a building shall for the purpose of Chapter VII of the Act and of any bye law, be deemed to be material if (a) it effects or is likely to affect prejudicially the stability or safety of the building or the condition of the building in respect of drainage, ventilation, sanitation or hygiene; or (b) it increases or diminishes the height or area covered by the cubical capacity of the building, or reduces the cubical capacity of any room in the building below the minimum prescribed in any bye law; or (c) it converts into a place for human habitation a building or part of a building originally constructed for other purposes; or (d) it is an alteration declared by a bye law made in this behalf to be material alteration. 8. I do not think that no permission of the Board is required if the proposed construction is to be made not in the ground floor but in the upper stories of a building abutting or adjacent to a public street or place, and that such permission is only necessary where the construction is to be made on the ground floor adjoining the public street or place. If it were so then it would be open to the owner of a building which is only one-storied and which is adjacent to a public street to build any number of stories in that building without obtaining the permission of the Municipal Board. In my opinion where the building in which the necessary construction has to be made abuts on or is adjacent to a public street or place it is incumbent on the owner of such building to obtain the permission of the Board and give a notice to the Board of the proposed constructions. In view of the fact that the building of the applicant admittedly abuts and is adjacent to a public street it was incumbent on her to give a notice to the Board as required u/s 178 of the Municipalities Act before demolishing the rooms in the fourth storey and building new ones in their place. In view of the fact that the applicant made unauthorised constructions in her building and refused to comply with the notice given to her by the Board she has been rightly convicted by the lower courts. 9. The application is, therefore rejected.