Bucknill CJ:

This was an appeal from a decision of the Magistrate Mr. WL Carter dated the l9th of July by which he prohibited as from the 5th of September 1916 the use of a certain dwelling house for human habitation.

The matter arose in this way: on the 1st of March 1916 the Municipal Health Officer of Singapore caused a notice to be served upon the owner ofNo. 5-F Lim Eng Bee Lane purporting to be issued under the provisions of Section 226 of the Municipal Ordinance 1913.

This notice reads as follows:

"830

H. 0/14.

Municipality of Singapore

Notice requiring abatement of nuisance under section 226 of Ordinance VIII of 1913

"A"

To

402/1916 sd. L.C.

"The owner.

6.6.1916.

Take notice that under the provisions of the Municipal Ordinance 1913, the Commissioners being satisfied of the existence at 5-F Lim Eng Bee Lane of a nuisance being premises in such a state as to be a nuisance or injurious to health, do hereby require you within 14 days from the service of this notice to abate the same and for that purpose to remove the occupants and cease to use as a human dwelling.

"If you make default in complying with the requisitions of this notice a summons will be issued requiring your attendance before the Police Court to answer a complaint which will be made for the purpose of enforcing the abatement of the said nuisance and for recovering the costs and penalties that may be incurred thereby. Dated this 1st day of March 1916.

"Sd. WRC Middleton.

"Municipal Health Officer.

"Municipal Health Office,

Singapore

How served

When served

By whom served

sd. H.V.

11.3.16"

As the notice was not complied with the Municipality applied to the Police Court under the provisions of section 227 of the Municipal Ordinance for an abatement order (see & read p. 23 of record); the Magistrate as before stated made a closing order in the terms mentioned above.

It is from this order that the owner of the property is appealing.

The dwelling house in question is one of a large block of houses which appear with the sanction of the Municipality to have been allowed to be erected in 1902. It was argued that as the Municipality had thus passed he plans for and allowed the building of these premises in 1902 it was not open to the Municipality in view of the fact that there had been no constructional change in the building in question or in the block of which it forms a part, now to declare that the premises were a nuisance and/or injurious to health simply on the ground that according to the more modern views which now obtain the methods of construction which the Municipality fully sanctioned in 1902 are contrary to the later ideas of the principles of sanitation and hygiene. I do not however consider that there is in law any such estoppel.

The only evidence of serious importance before the Magistrate was that of the extremely experienced Municipal Health Officer, Dr. Middleton.

It appears clearly from his evidence that he considers that this house and the whole block are constructed on insanitary principles and that nothing can possibly be done by any re-construction of the house which would render it in his opinion fit for human habitation.

I have seen the premises and I can have very little doubt but that the learned doctor is quite correct.

In order to ascertain whether the action of the Municipality has been correct it is necessary to see what are the powers which the Municipality possess in dealing with insanitary dwellings.

These powers are very varied.

In the first place under Section 217 it is provided that when the Health Officer has certified in writing that in his opinion any building used or occupied as a dwelling is unfit for human habitation and cannot be rendered fit therefor without the execution of such alterations or structural operations as he may specify the Municipal Commissioners may by notice in writing require the owner to carry into effect the execution of such operations or structural alterations as