NIRMAL RAMJIBHAI DEVSIBHAI Vs. NANDUBEHN DAHYABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Original complainant has challenged the order of acquittal dated 22-8-1980 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Wadhvan in Criminal Case of 1980. Complainant had filed a complaint under Section 21(2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (Rent Act for short). Complainant admittedly is a tenant of respondent No. 1 and had served a notice under Section 21(1) of the Rent Act calling for certain particulars. As the said notice was not replied under Section 21(2) of the Rent Act a complaint was filed. The learned Magistrate on construing the notice to be not in compliance of the requirement of Section 21(1) of the Rent Act has recorded the acquittal of the landlady who is respondent No. 1 herein. This order of acquittal is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) Short question that arise in this appeal is whether the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate on reading of Ex. 41 the notice is properly recorded or not. According to the learned Magistrate in view of the provisions of Section 21(1) of the Rent Act what is required to be called upon by the tenant is the particulars of the amount of standard rent of the premises or part thereof and not any other particulars of the rent. Complainant by his notice Ex. 41 has simply called upon for the particulars of rent and not the particulars of standard rent and as the said notice was not in compliance with the requirement of Section 21(1) of the Rent Act there is nothing wrong if the same is not replied. In my opinion learned Magistrate has been too technical in construing the notice Ex. 41 and has thereby committed an error. Section 21(2) of the Rent Act reads as under:

(3.) So what is required to be called for by the tenant is the particulars of the previous tenants and the rents paid by them and what is required to be furnished by the landlord is the particulars of the amount of standard rent of the premises or part thereof. Therefore in my opinion there is nothing wrong if the tenant has called for the particulars as to tenant and rent paid by such tenant. Tenant is not required to call for standard rent but it is the landlord who has to supply particulars as to standard rent. Calling upon the landlord to furnish the particulars as to previous tenants and rents paid by them in my opinion is a compliance of the requirements of Section 21(1) of the Rent Act. Thus the conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate is erroneous and liable to be set aside. However in the instant case I do not propose to interfere with the order of acquittal on a different ground.