Order.-The petitioner is the accused in S.T.C. No. 68 of 1974 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hindupur. He has been convicted under section 211 read with section 228(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act 1965 and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200. The case against the petitioner is that he re-roofed the rear room of his house without the prior permission of the Executive Committee of the Municipality. The petitioner no doubt denied having got the re-roofing done, but in the light of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, the trial Court has rightly held that he re-roofed the rear room without the permission of the Executive Committee. 2. Sri S.Govindarajulu, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even if it is held that the petitioner has got a new roof fixed up for the rear room in the place of the old roof, the old one having gone into utter disrepair, it cannot be said that he made any such alteration of the building so as to construe it as a construction or reconstruction of the building for which alone prior permission is necessary under the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the proviso to section 227 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act which reads: “Provided that works of necessary repair which do not affect the position or dimension of a building or any room therein shall not be deemed an alteration or addition for the purposes of this section.” Sri G. Obulapathi Chowdary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State draws my attention to the decision reported in Vijayawada Municipality v. Naganath Ramachandra Rowlwap1 wherein it was held that an alteration of a single room into four rooms by putting up partition walls amounts to an alteration of the main building within the meaning of section 215 (1) of the Madras District Municipalities Act. In that case the building which consisted of a big hall was converted into four separate rooms, to facilitate the letting of the building in convenient portions. Even though the plinth area of the main building was not changed, admittedly the partition-walls were erected not by way of any necessary repair to the building but as an alteration of the main building consisting of a single room into four separate rooms. Even though the plinth area of the main building was not changed, admittedly the partition-walls were erected not by way of any necessary repair to the building but as an alteration of the main building consisting of a single room into four separate rooms. In the instant case admittedly the rear room is not changed either in its dimensions or in its position. The old rickety roof was replaced by a [new roof. It would be difficult to construe such re-roofing as an addition to or alteration of the building so as to bring it within the ambit of section 227 (1) of the A.P Municipalities Act. The action of the petitioner is a work of necessary repair and it does not require any prior permission of the Executive Committee. The conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner are therefore set aside and the petitioner is acquitted. If the petitioner has already paid the fine, the same shall be refunded to him.