EMPEROR Vs. NOORMAHOMED HAJI JANMAHOMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application against the conviction of the accused by a Bench of Honorary Presidency Magistrates of offences under Sub-section 257(2) and 375 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888.

(2.) THE accused was served with a notice on March 9, 1940, requiring him to do certain work covered by those sections. THE only question is whether he is a person liable to be served with such a notice and required to do the work in question, and that depends entirely on the definition of the expression "owner". It is not suggested that the accused is an occupier, which is one of the words used in Section 375. THE only question is whether he is an owner. "Owner" is defined in Section 3(m) of the Act as meaning the person who receives the rent of the said premises, or who would be entitled to receive the rent thereof if the premises were let, and includes an agent or trustee who receives such rent on account of the owner, and an agent or trustee who receives the rent of, or is entrusted with, or concerned for, any premises devoted to religious or charitable purposes. It is suggested that these premises are devoted to charitable purposes. But there is no evidence that the accused is a trustee or concerned with the management thereof.