EMPEROR Vs. AZIZ GAFFOOR KAZI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for revision of the conviction by the Fourth Presidency Magistrate of the applicant on a charge under Section 248(1)(c) of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, III of 1888.

(2.) Section 248 of the Act lays down that where any premises are without a water-closet, or privy, or urinal, or bathing or washing place, or if the Commissioner is of opinion that the existing water-closet, or privy, or urinal, or bathing or washing place accommodation available for the persons occupying or employed in any premises is insufficient, inefficient, or on any sanitary grounds objectionable, the Commissioner may, with the previous approval of the Standing Committee, by written notice, require the owner of such premises to provide additional accommodation, or to make structural or other alterations or to substitute water-closet accommodation for privy accommodation

(3.) The facts in this case are that the applicant Aziz Gaffoor Kazi entered into an agreement with Mrs. Hamabai J.K. Mehta who was the owner of the premises in dispute for a period of three years. By this agreement the owner granted to the applicant the right to recover rents of the premises in question on payment by him to her on a monthly sum of rupees 1250 for a period of three years, and amongst the clauses of this agreement, by Clause 6 the rent contractor, that is the applicant, agreed to carry out all repairs to the properties except heavy repairs and to do all acts and things required by the Municipality or any other public authority to be done by the owner or by the tenant, and it was provided that the rent contractor should be liable at his own costs to carry out all such requisitions as may be necessary either on account of the nature of the user of the said premises or of any part or parts thereof or for any other reason.