SHABBAR KHAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the complainant under section 378 (4) CrPC after obtaining special leave to appeal challenging the acquittal of respondent Razia Khanam by the appellate Court of the offence punishable under section 43(5) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE findings of fact recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Betul after trial were that complainant Shabbar Khan was the tenant of Safia Khanam at a monthly rent of Rs. 150/ -from the year 1986 in a house in Azad Ward. Betul, accused Rajia Khanam is sister of Safia Khanam and she claimed to be the co -landlord of this accommodation as the house originally belonged to their father, she sent the notice dated 29.1.1988 (Ex.O.1) to the complainant claiming to be the co -owner of the house and requesting him to pay the rent to her, thereafter the complainant was paying rent sometimes to one sister and sometimes to the other and thus the relationship of the tenant -landlord came into existence between the complainant and the accused, there was water and electricity supply to the complainant since the time the house was let out to him, it was disconnected at the instance of the accused when she gave application Ex.C. 4 to the M.P. Electricity Board and application Ex.C. 2 to the Municipal Council for doing so. On these findings it was held that the accused got the essential supply cut off without just and sufficient cause and the accused was convicted and fined Rs. 500/ -.

(3.) AFTER scrutiny of the evidence on record this Court is of the opinion that the conviction recorded by the trial Magistrate was well merited and it has been set aside by the appellate Court on unsubstantial grounds. The trial Court held that the accused hereself claimed to be the co -landlord of the suit accommodation by sending a notice through her lawyer and this was accepted by the complainant. The accused represented before the Municipal Council and the M.P. Electricity Board that she is co -owner of the house and, therefore, the appellate Court was not justified in holding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the accused and the complainant. The finding arrived at by the trial Magistrate on the basis of the evidence on record was just and proper.