HARISH KUMAR CHHABRA Vs. D M MUZAFFAR NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. This is landlord's writ petition directed against order dated 7-9-1990 passed by District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar allowing application of Mahendra Kumar, respondent No. 2 under Section 31/33 of U. P. Rent Regulation Act (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 ). Through the impugned order it has been held that landlord did not inform about the vacancy in accordance with law (Section 15 of the Act), hence he was liable to be prosecuted under Sections 31, 32 and 33 of the Act. Ultimately, through the impugned order applicant Mahendra Kumar was authorized to institute complaint in that regard, in terms of Section 33 (1) of the Act which is quoted below alongwith Section 31 (1) of the Act: "31 (1) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act. . . . . . . . . . shall be punished. . . . . . . . . . 33 (5) No prosecution for an offence punishable under this Act shall be instituted except on a complaint authorized by the D. M. "

(2.) PROPERTY in dispute belongs to M/s. Harish Sugar Company, Muzaffarnagar and Harish Kumar, petitioner is Managing Director of the said company.

(3.) EVEN if it is held that Act continued to apply even after purchase of the building by the company the fact that it was released under Section 16 of the Act by R. C. and E. O. in favour of the petitioner company was sufficient to absolve the company from the criminal liability provided under Sections 31 to 33 of the Act. Under Section 15 of the Act it is necessary for the landlord to intimate the vacancy not later than seven days after the occurrence of the vacancy. However, under Section 15 (4) of the Act District Magistrate on being satisfied on an application made to him in that behalf may condone the delay, in intimating the vacancy. Releasing the building in favour of the landlord may taken to be implied condonation of landlord's fault of not intimating the vacancy within seven days.