ORDER The petitioner in this Revision Case is the owner of hotel premises No. 89,M.S. Koil Street, Royapuram,Madras. When P.W.1 inspected the hotel on 31st August, 1961 he found the fire place therein to cause nuisance to the neighbouring house and, therefore, directed the petitioner to construct a 9 “brick wall with fire bricks close to the existing 4½” wall to abate the nuisance. The prosecution out of which this Revision Case arises was launched on his failure to construct the wall and abate the nuisance. The learned Fourth Presidency Magistrate, George Town found the petitioner guilty and convicted him with a sentence of fine of Rs. 30. What is urged before me is that the nuisance sought to be abated is not an actionable nuisance as defined in the Madras Public Health Act (III of 1939). The argument is that unless the alleged nuisance causes or is likely to cause injury, danger, annoyance or offence to the sense of sight, smell or hearing or disturbance to rest or sleep or which is or may be dangerous to life or injurious to the health or property of the public or the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity or persons who may have occasion to use any public right, it cannot be deemed nuisance. Reliance was also placed in this connection on a ruling of the Calcutta High Court in Dwarka Prasad v. Roy Chowdhary1 , which was a decision rendered under section 268 of the Indian Penal Code, and is to the effect that the words “ public” , “in general” and “ vicinity” in the definition of the public nuisance in section 268 of the Indian Penal Code indicate that there can be no public nuisance unless the general public of the locality is affected by the nuisance. There is an apparent distinction between the definition of ‘nuisance’ in the Madras Public Health Act and in the Penal Code which defines ‘public nuisance ‘. Though the language in both almost read the same, the word ‘common ‘appearing in the Penal Code definition, does not appear in the Health Act. Further, the latter definition is more comprehensive. Under section 13 of the General Clauses Act words in singular shall include the plural and vice versa. Though the language in both almost read the same, the word ‘common ‘appearing in the Penal Code definition, does not appear in the Health Act. Further, the latter definition is more comprehensive. Under section 13 of the General Clauses Act words in singular shall include the plural and vice versa. Therefore, when we find the omission in the definition of nuisance under the Health Act, the significant word ‘common ‘appearing in the definition of public nuisance in section 268, Indian Penal Code we are justified in drawing legitimate inference that nuisance as defined in the Health Act, includes both public and private nuisance. Under section 43 of the Health Act, any person aggrieved by a nuisance in any local area, is entitled to give information of the same to the Health Officer or any officer of the Public Health Establishment of the Local Authority. It can hardly be said that the occupant of the house adjacent to the hotel is not a person aggrieved. He is certainly a member of the public and when he is affected by the heat emitting from the neighbouring hotel, it is a matter which affects not only his health but the health of other persons visiting the house and in that view, the requirement of a nuisance as defined in the Health Act must be deemed to have been satisfied in this case. I am, therefore, of opinion that the conviction in this case under section 44 read with section 134 and Schedule I of the Public Health Act is correct and the sentence of fine of Rs. 30 in the circumstances does not call for interference. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. K.S.-----Petition dismissed.