STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SUNDERLAL KARSHANJI MIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in these three proceedings pertains to the interpretation of sec. 24 of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (hereafter referred to as the Act) in a case where essential supply or service has come to an end not on account of any overt act or omission on the part of the landlord but on account of some other reason. The question is whether the landlord is bound to restore the essential supply of service when it is within his power to do so and whether his failure so to restore the supply or service would amount to withholding of the essential supply or service enjoyed by the tenant as contemplated by sec. 24(1) and made punishable under sub sec. (4) thereof ? A few facts for this purpose may be stated.

(2.) Two prosecutions came to be launched by two different tenants against two different landlords in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Dwarka under sec. 24(4) of the Act. The following circumstances led to the launching of the prosecution in each of the two cases.

(3.) The complainants were tenants of the premises situated in the town of Dwarka and the accused in both these cases were landlords. In both the cases the premises had a facility of basket type latrines attached to them. These latrines were being cleansed by sweepers employed by the Nagar Panchayat. It appears that pursuant to a decision in respect of the Bhangi Kashta Mukti Scheme taken by the Government to do away with manual sweeping of refuge a Circular was issued to the local authorities; and pursuant to the said circular the Nagar Panchayat of Dwarka directed the landlords (accused in each of the two cases) to convert the basket type latrines into aqua type (flush type) latrines on or before a specified date. Both the landlords failed to do this. The Nagar Panchayat had stopped providing services of sweepers for cleansing basket type latrines. The up shot of all this was that the conservancy service as provided to the tenants in both the cases came to a halt. The tenants gave notice to the landlords requiring them to restore this conservancy service which had stopped. The landlords did not comply with the same and that resulted into two prosecutions in question.