TILOKCHAND PUNAMCHAND, LANDLORD Vs. KANHAYALAL AGARWALA TENANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule has been obtained by the landlord in respect of an order passed by the Bent Controller under Section 21, Calcutta Bent Ordinance, 1946, whereby he has been fined the sum of Rs. 50/ - for not carrying out certain orders passed by the Bent Controller in previous proceedings.

(2.) THE facts briefly are as follows: The tenant applied under Section n - A, Calcutta House Bent Control Order, 1943, to the Bent Controller for a notice to be served on the landlord requiring him to restore the supply of electricity which the landlord had cut off. The Bent Controller granted the application and directed the landlord to restore the supply of electricity within a -week from the date on which the order was passed which was 14th May 1946. The landlord appealed from that order but that appeal was dismissed. He then filed a review application before the appellate Court. That also was rejected. Up till then the landlord had not restored the supply of electricity. The tenant then filed a complaint under Section 21, Calcutta Bent Ordinance of 1946, stating that electricity -had not been supplied within the time mentioned in the order of 14th May 1946 and asked that the landlord might be fined in accordance with the provisions of Section 21, Calcutta Bent Ordinance, 1946. The learned Bent Controller has found -that his order of 14th of Hay 1946 had not been carried out and fined the landlord the sum of lta. so/ - although in the meantime on 27tb> February 1947 the supply of electricity was restored.

(3.) I have directed my attention to the provi -sions of Section 26, Calcutta Bent Ordinance, 1946, and, have considered whether the provisions in that section would enable the Court to act under 8. 81, in the circumstances of this case ; I am of opinion that nothing said in this section would empower the Court to act under Section 21.. Section 26 says that any proceedings commenced under the provisions of the Calcutta House Bent Control Order, 1943, "shall on the said Order ceaaing to be in operation, be continued and be, as far as may be, deemed to have been oommen -ced under the corresponding provision of this Ordinance." All that this means is that if the proceedings commenced under the Calcutta House Bent Control Order of 1943, are not terminated, they may be continued and they may be treated as far'as may be to have been commenced under the corresponding provision of the Calcutta Bent Ordinance of 1946. Here, however, the proceedings under the Calcutta House Bent Control Order, 1913, had terminated. They were not being continued and therefore it can -not be said that the provisions of Section 26 are attracted. It should be remembered that under the Calcutta House Bent Control Order of 1943, there was no penal provision for non -compliance with the direction of the Bent Controller. Under the present law as laid down by the Calcutta Bent Ordinance of 1946 there is this penal provision provided in Section 21. It would be against all the canons of construction of statutes to enforce penal provision of s, 21, Calcutta Bent Ordinance of 1946 in respect of proceedings under Section 11 -A of the Calcutta House Bent Control Order of 1948.