BUDHU MOHAN Vs. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule has been obtained by the petitioners who have been convicted by the Municipal Magistrate and fined. The case against them is that they did not comply with a notice to vacate certain premises which were in a dangerous condition and that thereby they had committed an offence which was punishable under Section 488, Calcutta Municipal Act.

(2.) THE facts briefly are these : The petitioners are tenants of certain premises. It came to the notice of the Municipality that the premises were in a dangerous condition and after inspection a notice was served both upon the landlord and the tenants under Rule 4, sub -rule (2) of Schedule XVIII, Calcutta Municipal Act requiring the inmates of the building to vacate it. The tenants admitted that they received this notice. They applied under Section 511, Calcutta Municipal Act for a withdrawal of the notice. The matter was considered by the Administrative Officer and he was satisfied that the notice was necessary. In spite of this decision the tenants did not vacate the premises and they were prosecuted, and sentenced as stated above.

(3.) THE only contention raised before this Court is that the Magistrate was wrong in refusing the petitioners an opportunity to adduce evidence to prove that the notice was not necessary inasmuch as the premises were not in a dangerous condition. It was pointed out that the learned Magistrate refused to allow the petitioners to adduce evidence on this point holding that the question was concluded by the decision of the Corporation and that he had no jurisdiction to consider whether or not the building was in a dangerous condition.