BANWARILAL Vs. RATAN BIHARI TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by Banwarilal appellant against the order, dated February 17, 1975 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Kota, acquitting the respondent of the offence under Section 23(1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE relevant facts are these. The appellant is tenant of the respondent, who for ulterior motive of evicting the appellant wish held water and electricity amenities on 4 -10 -72 from the tenanted premises. The appellant moved an application under Section 12 of the Act for the restoration of the amenities, in the court of City Magistrate, Kota, who on 8/12 2 73 gave an interim order directing the respondent to restore the amenities within 10 days on the condition of payment of Rs. 67 -28 to respondent pending the disposal of application under Section 12 of the Act The appellant sent a money order for Rs 42/ - only to the respondent, which his refused to accept and did not restore the amenities. It appears that the case was fixed for 26 -2 -73. On that day, the appellant and his counsel were present, while the respondent with his counsel were absent. The appellant moved an application that though he had complied with the order of the court by sending the money order for Rs. 42/ - to the respondent, he had refused to accept the money order and had failed to restore the amenities. However, the City Magistrate was of the view that the appellant was bound to pay Rs. 67.28 and, therefore, again passed an order on 26 -2 -73 that the appellant should deposit in the court a sum of Rs. 67.28 in compliance of the order, dated February 12, 1973. The appellant deposited the amount in the court on 28 -2 -73 and the case was not taken up on 6 -3 -73. It appears that the order of the court, dated February 26, 1973 was not brought to the notice of the respondent as be along with his counsel was absent on that day. The respondent was also not informed of the face that in compliance of the order dated February 26, 1973, the appellant on 28 -2 -73 had deposited a sum of Rs 67.28 in the court. On 23.3.73, the learned City Magistrate passed an order that the appellant may himself restore the amenities. Thereafter, the appellant obtained requisite sanction from the District Magistrate, Kota and filed a complaint under Section 23(1) of the Act against the respondent for contravening the aforesaid order of the City Magistrate.

(3.) MANY interesting points were raised in the appeal, which I do not propose to deal because I am of the view that the appellant had failed to prove that the respondent contravened the order of the City Magistrate.