JATINDRA KUMAR CHAKRABORTY Vs. TARAMONI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against the judgment dated April 30, 1977 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 8th Court, Alipore in Rent Control Appeal No. 68 of 1976 setting aside the judgment dated Nov. 27, 1973, passed by the Rent Controller, Calcutta, in Rent Control Case No. 309 of 1979. The petitioner Jatindra Kumar Chakraborty made an application under section 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, on May 26, 1973 against the opposite parties who were the landlord in respect of premises No. 46, Simla Road in the town of Calcutta for the alleged disconnection of electric line of the tenant-petitioner, Sri Jatindra Kumar Chakraborty before the Rent Controller, Calcutta and on the said application the said Rent Control Case No. 309 of 1973 was started The learned Rent Controller by his judgment dated Nov. 27, 1973, came to the finding that the landlords opposite parties illegally disconnected the electric supply to the premises of the tenant and, accordingly, directed for restoration of supply of electricity to the said premises within a month and he also directed that the landlords opposite parties should pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 each and out of such fine, if realised, a sum of Re 100 would be part to the complainant as compensation. Against the said adjudication made by the learned Rent Controller the landlords preferred the said Rent Control Appeal No,68 of 1976 to the 8th Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Alipore and by his judgment dated April 30, 1977 the learned Additional District Judge allowed the said appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the application of the tenant petitioner under Sec. 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Against the said adjudication of the Additional District Judge an application under Art. 227 of the Constitution real with section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved by the tenant petitioner and as aforesaid the instant Rule was issued on such application.

(2.) At the outset of the hearing Mr. Mitre, the learned Counsel appearing for the landlords opposite parties, raised two preliminary objections About the maintainability of the instant rule. He submitted that in the absence of any format complaint within the meaning of section 4 of the Code Criminal Procedure the said application under section 31 was not maintainable or in any event the learned Rent Controller could not treat the said application as a complaint and nags the said penal order of fine on the landlords opposite parties. Mr. Mitre submitted that to constitute a complaint within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Code Criminal Procedure there shall not only be allegations of the crime committed by a party but there should also he a prayer to punish the accused Mr. Mitre contended that in the instant case although there was an allegation that the landlord illegally dis-connected the electric supply but no prayer was made to the extent that the accused should be punished in accordance with law accordingly. The said application under section 31 could not be treated as a complaint within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. For this contention Mr. Mitra referred to a Bench decision of this Court made in the case of Durga Dutt Khema Vs. The State, reported in 14 C.W.N at page 916 . Dasgupta, J. (as His hardship then was) speaking for the Court held In the said decision that to constitute a complaint within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Code Criminal Procedure there must be a prayer to Inflict punishment on the accused. In the said case also a complaint was lodged before the Metropolitan Magistrate by the tenant for interfering with the essential supply in the tenanted premises but no specific prayer was made in the said case to impose penalty on the landlord and their Lordships held in the said case that as the said complaint could not be constituted as complaint within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Code Criminal Procedure the learned Magistrate was not competent to treat the said petition as complaint and proceed on the same. Mr. Mitra also referred to a decision of the Allahabad High Court made In the case of Tej Singh Vs. State, reported in AIR 1965 Allahabad at page 508 and also another decision of the Patna High Court made in the case of Hameshwar Prasad Vs. Bhatu Mahton & Others, reported in AIR 1958 Patna of page 11 . In all the said decision section 4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Cods was taken into consideration and it was held that to constitute a complaint there must be a prayer for inflicting punishment on the accused. Mr. Mitre also referred to another Bench decision of this Court made in the case of Subedh Chandra Vs. Jamser Mandal reported in AIR 1949 Calcutta at page 55 . In the said decision the import of section 4(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was taken into consideration by the Division Bench and Chief Justice Harries speaking for the Court held that to constitute a complaint, suitable prayer for imposing penalty should also be made. In reply to the said contention of Mr. Mitra, Mr. Chakraborty, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in the instant case no complaint was lodged with the learned Magistrate but an application under section 3l of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was made before the Rent Controller and in the said application allegations about the overt acts committed by the landlords in disconnecting the electric supply to the tenanted premises were specifically made. He submitted that there is no standard form to made a complaint and a complaint under section 4(1) of the Code Criminal Procedure can be made both orally and in writing. He submitted that the Rent Controller had exclusive jurisdiction under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act to deal with an application containing allegations of interferences with essential supplies. In the tenanted premises by the landlords .and in the rules framed under the Premises Tenancy Act, it has been provided for that for disposing of such application containing allegations of criminal nature the Rent Controller will follow as far as possible the procedure laid down In the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Chakraborty contended that for a proceeding before the Lent Controller under Sec. 31 of the West ? Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 a complaint within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure need not be made and he submitted that the application filed before the Rent Controller was quite in accordance with the provisions of section 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and the learned Rent Controller was quite justified In passing the said order of penalty. In this connection, Mr. Chakraborty referred to the decision of Bhimappa Dassappa B. Sannover Vs. Laxman Sama Gonda, reported in AIR 1910 Supreme Court at page 1153. In the said decision the Supreme Court held that there is no form prescribed for lodging a complaint under section 4(1) of the Code Criminal Procedure and the complaint may be made either orally or in writing. If from the allegations made It transpires that the accused has been charged with some overt acts constituting an offence under the law such allegations will constitute a complaint within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Code Criminal Procedure Mr. Chakraborty also, referred to a decision of this court made in the case of B. Haider Vs. P.M. Chakraborty reported in AIR 1967 Calcutta at page 6 . It was hold in the said decision that the Rent Controller was not a Court within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code, and as such no appeal could be preferred and revisional application could be made against an order passed by the Rent Controller under the Criminal Procedure Code, but his order could be challenged in a proceeding under Art. 227 of the Constitution. Mr. Chakraborty also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Calcutta Discount Company, reported in AIR 1074 Supreme Court at page 1358 . It was hold in the said decision that procedural technicality must not influence Tribunals or Courts in granting reliefs He submitted that even assuming that a formal prayer for Imposing punishment on the guilty landlords was required to be made in an application under section 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, absence of such formal prayer was of very little consequence and the Tribunal was not debarred in granting relief if the Tribunal was satisfied that the landlord was guilty of the overt acts complained of in the petition. Mr. Chakraborty also submitted that the Rent Control legislation In a country suffering from acute shortage of accommodation is a beneficial legislation and the terms of such beneficial legislation must necessarily be liberal. For the said contention Mr. Chakraborty referred to a decision of the Supreme Court made the case of Moni Subrat Jain Vs. Raja Ram Vohr, reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court at page 299 . Relying on the said decisions, Mr. Chakraborty submitted that the said application under section 31 was not liable to be dismissed in limine simply because a prayer was not made specifically to impose punishment on the guilty landlords. He submitted that the application contained allegations to the effect that the landlords disconnected the electric supply to the tenanted premises and under the provisions of section 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the Rent Controller was competent to entertain the said application under section 31 and to dispose of the same in accordance with law.

(3.) After considering the respective submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties on the question of maintainability of the said application under section 31. I am inclined to accept the contention made by Mr. Chakraborty. In my view, under the provisions of section 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to entertain an application under section 31 of the said Act if the application contains allegations of over acts interfering with essential supply and/or easement attached to the tenanted premises. Accordingly, the said application under section 31 of the Premises Tenancy Act made by the tenant is not liable to be dismissed for want of a formal prayer to impose punishment and the Rent Controller was quite competent to entertain the said application and to decide the same on merits.