RAMLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 r/w. Section 401, Cr. P. C. is preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 2-11-1999 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jaipur and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Revision Petition No. 116/99, whereby the order dated 21 -9-99 passed by the Additional District Magistrate-II, Jaipur in Case No. 176/99 passed under Section 133, Cr. P. C. has been set aside.

(2.) In brief the facts of the case are that the petitioner let out a shop to respondent Mohammed Hanif through a rent note in the year 1988 and there was a clause that the tenant will not create any nuisance and it was made clear that the shop would be utilised for the bakery purposes. It is alleged that after letting out the shop, the size of the furnace has been increased and the tenant was using 5 quintals wood for the purposes of bakery and by raising the quantity of furnace, created public nuisance, smoke and also increased heat which caused damage to the walls and roof of the nearby houses on account of the gas and heat. Therefore, a complaint under Section 133, Cr. P. C. was submitted by the petitioner before the A. D. M., who after investigation found that it is public nuisance and vide its order dated 21-9-99 confirmed the order dated 12-4-99 under Section 142, Cr. P. C., against which the respondent-tenant has preferred a criminal revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The Additional Sessions Judge having considered the submissions of the respective parties, has observed that as per the rent note, business which is carried by the tenant-revision petitioner before the Revisional Court is legally authorised as the permission was also accorded by the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur. It was also observed that the landlord has filed this petition under Section 133, Cr. P. C. regarding public nuisance, although few witnesses and neighbours have been examined and they have supported the version of the petitioner but the Revisional Court has observed that it is not a public nuisance and it may be a personal nuisance. It was also observed that for the purpose of getting eviction, the petitioner has availed this remedy to redress his grievance.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Singh v. Shanti Sarup. reported in 1978 (6) Cr LR (SC) 524 : (1979 Cri LJ 59), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that working of a bakery emitting smoke - Injurious to - Health safety and convention of public - Held proper order is demolish even within one month.