BADRUL ISLAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BADRUL Islam and Ram Das have filed this revision application against the judgment and order dated 30-6-1976 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, confirming the revisionist's conviction under Section 448 IPC and the sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- each awarded thereunder. In default of payment of fine they were awarded one month's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Badrul Islam and Ram Das are tenants of shops on the ground floor owned by Mohd. Ahmad alias Babu Master (who will hereinafter be referred to as Mohd. Ahmad). The first floor of this building was in occupation of Mohd. Ahmad who stored his nets and bags etc. therein. The relations between the landlord and the tenants were far from cordial. The building being an old and ricketty the Municipal Board, Hamirpur, served a notice under Section 263 of the Municipalities Act on the owner to pull down the western wall of the house existing on the first floor. The owner wrote to the Municipal Board that he will have no objection provided the ground floor was got vacated by the tenants. It is said that on J 6-5-1971 at about 10 A. M. the landlord received information at his house that the first floor of his building was being pulled down by Badrul Islam and Ram Das with the assistance of three labourers, namely, Abdul Khaliq, Kalka Prasad and Ram Asrey. On getting that information he reached the spot and found these persons on the first floor pulling down the constructions. He also found that his articles stored in the first floor were taken away. On his protest the tenants and others showed an aggressive attitude. This incident was witnessed by Laxmi Shankar (PW 3), Krishna Maharaj and Surya Kumar Tiwari (PW 5). The landlord lodged a report at the police station at 11.15 A. M. Sri Harnandan Singh, the then S. O. Kot- wali, reached the spot and found certain persons demolishing the wall of the upper storey. Both the tenants were getting it pulled down under their instructions. The aforesaid five persons and one Munna who was also present, were taken into custody. Two housebreaking implements and a ladder were taken possession of. On these facts six persons were sent up for trial under various counts. However, the trial court framed a charge under Sections 427, 452 and 380 IPO.

(3.) THERE is no denying the fact that the revisionists are tenants on the ground floor, the first floor of which is in the occupation of the landlord for storing goods etc. THERE is also no dispute that a wall on the first floor had become in a dangerous condition and the Municipal Board, Hamirpur, had served a notice on the owner requiring him to demolish it. Ex. Kha-1 is the reply which the owner had sent to the Municipal Board. It reads as follows :- "The wall in respect of which you have given the notice is really in a dilapidated condition and residents of the mohalla have also asked me to pull it down. I have seen the wall and I really find that it deserves to be demolished. I asked the tenants who reside in the portion near this wall to vacate the shop in the interest of safety of person and property of the general public so that it may be pulled down and there may be no danger to any one but they are not willing to vacate it. If you want to have this wall pulled down you may have it done by your gang and I will bear its expenses I, therefore, pray that necessary action be taken in the interest of general public."