JUDGMENT
Martineau, J.
1. The plaintiff applied to the Municipal Committee of Anritsar for permission to build a baleony in front of his house. The Committee required him to pay Rs. 20 which he refused to do, and finally it rejected his application. He then sued for an injunction to restrain the Committee from preventing him from building the baleony. He was given a decree in the First Court, but the District Judge on appeal has dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has filed a second appeal.
2. It is contended for the appellant that as his application for permission to build the balcony was refused more than two months after he had made it the building of the baleony should, under the proviso to Section 193 of the Punjab Municipal Act, be deemed to have been sanctioned absolutely. This contention, however, is not correst if, as the defendant Committee maintaing, the lane in which the plaintiff’s house opns is a “street” as defined in Section 3 (13) fo the Act, as Section 193 refers only to buildings to be exected on private property. See Municipal Committee f Delhi v. Devi Sahai 62 P. Rule 1907 : 105 P. L. B. 1908 : 147 P. W. Rule 1907.
3. The fast that the arrangements for lighting and clearing the lane are made by the mohalladors at their expenses, and that the lane is comented by them, is not material. A lane which is sessesible to the public whether permanently or tomorarily is a “street”. The lane in which the plaintiff’s house is situate is closed by a wall at one end, and at the other end, where it opens on to the main street, there is a door, but it is not alleged that that door is ever elosed. Whether or not the mohalladars have a right to close the door and exclude the public need not be determined. Even if they have that right the lane would he a “street” as the public have not, as a matter of fast, been prevented by any physical obstruction from entering it although it would not be a “public street”. I agree, therefore, with the lower Appellate Court that the lane in question is a “street” as defined in the Municipal Act. This being so, it is elear from Section 172 that the plaintiff is not entitled to build the baleony without the permession of the Committee. The Committee has full power to withhold permission for the building of a structure that will project over a street, and a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in such a matter.
4. I dismiss the appeal with costs.