ISMAIL G H ARIFF Vs. BENOY K SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has a somewhat long history but briefly the relevant facts are as follows :

(2.) The petitioners are the mutwallis to the wakf estate of Golam Hossain Cassim Ariff deceased, usually known as the G. H. S. Ariff Estates. Premises No. 37, Armenian Street, Calcutta, is one of the properties belonging to the said wakf estate. It consists of three buildings, partly three-storied and partly four-storied and contains a large number of flats usually let out to tenants. The respondent No. 5, Ladhuram Tapuria, was in occupation of one of the flats on a portion of the third floor of the fourth storey of the said Premises; he is still in possession. It appears that as early as April, 1949 the tenants of 37, Armenian Street, including Ladhuram Tapuria, made complaints to the Chief Architect of the Calcutta Corporation about the deplorable state of the said building. It was particularly stated that the roof was in such a dangerous condition that slabs of lime plaster were falling on the head of the inmates. In my judgment in Ladhuram Tapuria v. Benoy Kumar Sen, Matter No. 97 of 1954 D/- 24-8-1955 (Cal) (A), I have set out a relevant portion of the letter of complaint wherein it was stated that the matter was serious and fraught with great danger to the inmates. It was further stated that

(3.) Objections were thereupon filed and were heard by the Administrative Officer who made an order that the requisitions contained in the said notices were to be complied with within three months and, in default, the matter be referred to the Municipal Magistrate. The objection of the landlord was that it was not possible to undertake part repair of the roof which had to be entirely lifted before it could be adequately dealt with. This they found impossible of performance because the said tenant, Ladhuram Tapuria, would not vacate the portion in his occupation on the fourth storey. The petitioners as the landlords served solicitors' letters upon the tenants but to no purpose. The Corporation at that stage, finding that neither the owners nor the occupiers were complying with the notices, referred the case to the Municipal Magistrate under Section 488 read with Rule 4 (1) of Schedule 18 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 (Case No. 2575-B of 1949).