Underground petrol tanks are not a "building" under municipal law, so street-line acquisition notice remains valid.

Underground petrol tanks were held not to fall within the municipal statute's definition of "building" because that expression, read in the statutory scheme, contemplated an occupiable structure such as a house, stable, shed, godown or similar construction. The tanks remained storage containers even though embedded in the ground and protected by masonry; their capacity to be shifted and the absence of an integral underground structure supported that view. Internal provisions on listing, occupation, drainage and building control reinforced the interpretation. The street-line acquisition notice was therefore valid and the tanks did not attract the exclusion applicable to buildings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants' underground petrol tanks constitute a "building" within the meaning of the municipal statute so as to exclude the operation of the provision empowering acquisition of land within the regular line of the street.

Analysis: The expression "building" was construed in the context of the statutory scheme and not in isolation. The definition was inclusive, but the surrounding provisions showed that the concept contemplated an occupiable structure such as a house, stable, shed, godown or similar construction. The underground tanks were merely metal containers used for storage of petrol; they remained tanks notwithstanding that they were embedded in the ground and protected by masonry. The tanks were capable of being shifted and were not an integral underground structure forming a single building. The Court also relied on internal indicators in the Act, including provisions dealing with listing, occupation, drainage and building control, to conclude that such storage tanks could not fall within the statutory notion of a building.

Conclusion: The underground petrol tanks were not a "building" and the notice issued under the street-line acquisition provision was valid.

---