BRAHAM DUTT SHARMA Vs. S. BISHAN SINGH RANGWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant Braham Dutt Sharma is occupying room No. 4A, Satwant Villa, Aarey Road, Near Railway Crossing, Goregaon (West), Bombay, which is owned by the accused. According to the complainant, he is occupying the said premises as a tenant since 1954. In the beginning, when he came to occupy the said premises, he was paying Rs. 10 per month as rent and he continued to pay the same rent till 1956. Between 1956 and 1959, the landlord started charging Rs. 12.50 p. as monthly rent for the said premises. According to the complainant, the landlord thereafter went on gradually increasing the rent and on the date of filing of the complaint, he was paying Rs. 18.40 p. per month as rent. He further contended that he had asked the landlord verbally to furnish with the data on the basis of which the present rent has been charged by him, but the accused has not furnished him with the said data. Therefore, he served a notice dated October 6, 1971, upon the landlord, calling upon him to furnish the particulars of the permitted increases and the rent which he was charging him. Obviously this notice was served by the complainant -tenant upon the accused -landlord under Section 21 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The accused gave a reply to the said notice through his advocate on October 14, 1971. He did not furnish the particulars as according to him, the complainant was only a statutory tenant. Then it was contended by the complainant that the landlord has not furnished the particulars asked for by him and hence he has committed an offence under Section 21(2) of the said Act.

(2.) THE accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge levelled against him under Section 21 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. According to the accused, he had already terminated the tenancy of the complainant and at present the complainant was occupying the premises as a statutory tenant. He further contended that he had also filed a suit against the complainant for ejectment. Accused admitted that originally he was charging Rs. 10 as monthly rent and now he is charging Rs. 18.40 p. per month, According to him, however, he has renovated the entire structure and also had supplied additional amenities like water and electricity to the premises occupied by the complainant. He further contended that the Municipality is also levying many taxes, which he is entitled to recover from the tenant and there -fore, he has increased the rent, According to him, he did not furnish the particulars asked for by the tenant because he was not a contractual tenant, but was merely a statutory tenant and hence was not entitled to the said particulars. In substance therefore, he denied having committed any offence.

(3.) AGAINST this order of acquittal, the present appeal has been filed by the original complainant under Section 417(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Shri Vilas V. Kamat, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended before me that the Presidency Magistrate committed an error in importing the element of mens -rea and then holding that there were no mala fides on the part of the landlord in not furnishing the particulars asked for by the tenant. According to Shri Kamat, the liability created by Section 21(2) of the Act is an absolute one and therefore no question of 'mens -rea' can arise once the contravention of the provision is established. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate is illegal. The Assistant Government Pleader Shri Solkar supported the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant before me. On the other hand, Shri Vohra, the learned Counsel for the accused -landlord has contended before me that normally an element of mens -rea is an necessary ingredient for all criminal offences. The said ingredient has not been excluded either expressly or by necessary implications in Section 21 of the present Act. The notice given by the tenant asking for the particulars was itself not bona fide and therefore, according to him, the landlord has not committed any offence when he did not furnish the necessary particulars. Further according to the learned Counsel, as the contractual tenancy of the complainant was already terminated, there was no obligation upon the landlord to furnish the particulars. In any case, according to him, as the learned Presidency Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the accused has not intentionally failed to supply the said particulars and has therefore, found him not guilty of the said offence, this is not a fit case, wherein this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Sub -section (3) of Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further contended that, the only course, which was open to the complainant under these circumstances was to take recourse to the provisions of the Act for getting the standard rent fixed and it was not open for him to serve any notice upon the landlord under Section 21 of the Act calling upon him to furnish the particulars.