KALABATI DEVI Vs. K K KUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule arises out of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against an order passed by the learned Additional District Judge 10th Court, Alipore on 23rd April, 1976 in Rent Control Appeal No. 6 of 1976 arising out of a proceeding under section 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

(2.) THE facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows: the petitioner is the owner of premises No. 12, Hossain Shah Road, P. S. Ekbalpore, Calcutta. The opposite party is a monthly tenant under the petitioner in respect of one flat on the 2nd floor (north western side) at a rental of Rs. 130/- per month. In 1973 the opposite party filed a complaint before the Rent Controller under section 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act stating that supply of filtered water from the overhead tank was totally stopped on and from 13th July, 1973. The learned Rent Controller caused an inspection to be made through the Inspector. The Complainant examined himself. The Inspector was also examined. Considering the report of the Inspector and the evidence on record the Rent Controller passed an order for restoration of the normal supply of filtered water to the complainant's premises and further directed the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 400/ -. It was further ordered that out of the fine realised, the complainant shall be paid 7/8-200/- as compensation. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge. The learned Additional district Judge agreed with the findings of the Rent Controller and affirmed its order. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has come up to this Court. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that both the Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge were wrong to hold that the petitioner stopped the supply of water in the disputed premises on and from 13th July, 1973. It is also contended that the learned Rent Controller was wrong in relying on the evidence of the complainant without taking any evidence of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the learned Additional District Judge erred in law in holding that with regard to the complaint under section 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the procedure as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure need not be followed. From the order dated 5th June, 1975 passed by the learned Rent controller it appears that the accused declined to adduce evidence and that being so it cannot be said that the learned Rent Controller did not take the evidence of the accused. I have gone through the evidence of the complainant as also the evidence of the Inspector and I have also perused the report of the Inspector. The learned Rent Controller considered the report and the, evidence and passed the order as stated above. It cannot be said that any illegality or irregularity was committed by the learned Rent Controller. It is true that the learned Additional District Judge stated that with regard to the complaint: under section 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act the procedure as provided in Criminal Procedure code need not be followed. That observation is not correct. Nevertheless, the learned Additional District Judge, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case declined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. I do not find anything to interfere in an application under Article 227 of the Constitution. In the result, the application fails and the Rule is discharged. The petitioner is directed to restore supply of filtered water to the complainant immediately.