Order.- The Revision involves a short point, though one possessing a certain degree of interest, regarding the interpretation of section 236 of the Madras City Municipal Act (IV of 1919), in conjunction with section 362 of the same Act, and section 3 of the Act, which deals with definitions. The facts are not in controversy, and are briefly as follows:- The revision, petitioner certainly erected, or commenced the erection of, a compound wall or boundary wall, which was less than 8 feet in height, according to an admission in the cross examination of a material witness (P.W. 1). Now, such a wall, regarded as a separate work or construction, will not be a ‘building ‘within the definition of section 3 (4) (a) of the Act, for that definition explicitely excepts from the term ‘wall’ a ‘boundary wall not exceeding 8 feet in height. ‘Section 236 of the Act runs as follows: “The construction or re-construction of a building shall not be begun unless and until the Commissioner has granted permission for the execution of the work.” Section 362 is the punitive section, under which unauthorised constructions are liable to be visited with the penalty provided under the section. Now, as I stated earlier, the revision petitioner does not dispute that he commenced the construction of this wall, without authority, but his claim is that it is less than 8 feet in height, that it is a boundary wall, that, therefore, it is outside the definition of section 3 (4) (a) hence, the construction of it without the permission of the Commissioner, is not an offence under section 236. Normally, this objection would have to prevail, for the word ‘building' as occurring in section 236 would be ordinarily referable to the definition in section 3(4)(a). But section 234(1)(b) of the Act, which deals with applications in writing for permission to execute a work together with a ground plan, etc., gives a special explanation in the following terms: “Building in this sub-section shall include a wall or fence of whatever height, bounding or abutting on a public street.” Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner (Sri Damodara Rao) argues, and I think with plausibility and force, that the special definition or explanation for ‘building’ provided in section 234(1)(b), must be limited to that sub-section and cannot be extended to cover the use of the word ‘building ‘in section 236. That is because the explanation is specifically to the effect that the definition embodied in it relates to the word ‘building’ as occurring in that sub-section, section 234 (1) (5). Where the word ‘building ‘occurs anywhere else, clearly we have to refer only to the general definition in section 3, sub-section (4) (a). I was at first rather exercised by this apparent inconsistency, or contradiction; it appeared to be a matter of a lapse on the part of the draftsman. But, I think that this could be explained or reconciled, on a different line of reasoning. Section 234 (1) (b) may conceivably relate to the situation in which a person is building a house together with the compound wall, at the same time; in that contingency, he will necessarily have to apply for permission for the construction of the house. When he so applies, he must include the particulars of the bounding wall, and obtain permission therefor, though the wall may be less than 8 feet in height. But, where he is separately constructing a boundary wall alone, the governing definition will be that in section 3(4)(a), and it is only where the boundary wall is over 8 feet in height that the construction of it will be unauthorised, and an offence under section 236, read with section 362 of the City Municipal Corporation Act. Consequently, I allow the revision petition and direct the acquittal of the revision petitioner. The fine, if paid, will be refunded. V.S. ------------ Petition allowed.