NARENDRA KUMAR MITRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against the conviction of the petitioner Narendra Kumar Mitra under Section 41 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1950 and the sentence passed thereunder of a fine of Rs. 60/-, in default simple imprisonment for six weeks. The case of the complainant Phani Bhusan Roy was briefly as follows:

(2.) Phani Bhusan Roy entered into occupation of one suite of rooms in the ground-floor of the house at 27/12, Baburam Ghosh Road, Tollygunge, at the monthly rate of rent of Rs. 50/- under the petitioner Narendra Kumar Mitra who was the owner of the house. He entered into possession on 13-4-1955. According to the complainant the rent Rs. 50/- was inclusive of charges for the electricity consumed in the suite of rooms tenanted to the complainant. On 3rd October 1955 when the complainant returned home from his office, he found that the electric supply to his suite of rooms had been cut off and on enquiry he found Out that this had been done at the instance of the land-lord petitioner. He found on enquiry that actual disconnection had been effected by a mistry, Ramprosad Sarma, who deposed as P. W. 3; and when the complainant went and enquired from Ramprosad Sarma why he had done so, Ramprosad said that he had done so at the order of the landlord petitioner, and if the landlord petitioner gave his consent he would restore the connection. The complainant then took the mistry to the landlord and asked for re-connection, but the landlord refused to grant re-connection and directed the mistry to go away. Accordingly on the same evening there was an information lodged to the police by the complainant, and on the next day the complainant filed a petition of complaint in Court. The landlord petitioner was summoned under Section 41 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950.

(3.) The accused petitioner pleaded not guilty at the trial and the defence in the Trial Court was that at the time, namely, on 3-10-1955, the petitioner was ill and confined to bed, and that he did not actually disconnect the supply of electricity or direct any mistry to disconnect the supply of electricity to the suite of rooms let out to the complainant. On behalf of the defence it was suggested that the complainant intended to remove to another flat on the 3rd October 1955 and, therefore, the complainant himself interfered with the meter-board so as to disconnect the electric supply to his suite of rooms, and that in fact, owing to the interference by the complainant with the meter-board the entire electric system of the bouse went out of order, and the accused petitioner had to call a mistry to put the electric system in order.