BALESWAR OJHA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGALLTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is against an order dated the 21st January 1967, passed by shri K. K. Sarkar, Additional District judge, Alippre 24 Parganas in R. C. Appeal No. 52 of 1966, dismissing the appeal from and order dated the 24th June 1966, passed by Shri B. N. Bhattacharya, Rent Controller, Alipore, 24 Parganas in R. C. Case No. 51 of 1962 T. 16 of 1962 holding the opposite party petitioner guilty under section 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act 1956, and directing him to pay a fine of Rs. 60/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days and further ordering a restoration of the electric Connection within seven days from the date of the order.

(2.) THE facts leading on to the present Rule may be put in a short compass. The applicant opposite party no. 2 Lalit Kumar Sinha, is a tenant in respect of one room on the first floor of a two storeyed house at Canning town belonging to the opposite party petitioner, who is the landlord of the said premises, at a rental of Rs. 25/-per month inclusive of the electric charges. The relationship between the landlord and the tenant has been a chequered one and while the tenant filed an application for fixation of fair rent before the Rent Controller, the landlord also started an ejectment suit. The applicant's case further is that the landlord defaulted to pay the electric charges as a result whereof the electric connection to the room occupied by the tenant was cut off by the authorities, Hence the present case was started under, section 31 of the west Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, before the Rent Controller, Alipore, 24 Parganas, The case of the landlord petitioner, inter alia, is that the electric supply is not comprised in the tenancy, the rent of the premises being Rs. 21/- and the electric charge being Rs. 4/- per month, that the tenant used to consume electricity much above the agreed terms as a result whereof the electric charges went up heavily to the serious prejudice of the landlord who had to foot the bill and ultimately he being unable to pay the excessive charges due to the tenant's highhandedness, the electrical authorities cut off the connection because of the resultant non-payment. Four witnesses were examined on behalf of the applicant tenant and two on behalf of the landlord opposite party before the Rent controller who as a result of the enquiry was pleased by his order dated the 24th June 1966 to find the landlord petitioner guilty under Section 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and saddled him with a fine of rs. 60/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days and further directed him to restore the electric connection of the room belonging to the tenant within seven days from the date of the said order. On appeal, Shri K. K. Sarkar, Additional District Judge, 11th court, Alipore, 24 Parganas, by his order dated 21. 1. 1967 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the ' Rent Controller. These orders have been impugned and form the subject-matter of the present Rule.

(3.) MR. Padmabindu Chatterjee, Advocate appearing on behalf of the landlord petitioner in support of the rule, has made a three fold submission. The first Contention of Mr. Chatterjee is that the electricity in question being not comprised in the tenancy of the opposite Party, the provisions of section 31 of the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act 1956, are not attracted to the facts of the present case and as such the ultimate order that was passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Additional District Judge is unwarranted and untenable. The second contention of Mr. Chatterjee is that even if the electricity be taken to have been comprised in the tenancy of the opposite party No. 2, the landlord petitioner having not willfully interfered with the said supply. The penalty enjoined under section 31 of the West bengal Premises Act, 1956, is not applicable and the orders impugned are wholly unwarranted and untenable. The third and the last submissions of mr. Chatterjee is that the procedure that has been followed by the Rent controller is a procedure which is not in accordance with law or with any procedure enjoined by law and the resultant proceedings have been vitiated thereby. In this context Mr. Chatterjee has catalogued two distinct instances of purported illegality, namely, the non-examination of the tenant applicant on oath in accordance with the provision of Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which applied to the present case and secondly the sentence of seven days' simple imprisonment in default of the payment of fine that was ultimately passed by the Rent controller. No body appeared on behalf of the tenant opposite party No. 2.