Thirumal Rao died in or about the year 1950, and his widow, the first respondent, companytinued in occupation of the premises, without having the use of municipal water supply though she companytinued to pay the original rent plus annas 10 more by way of permitted increase.
72 being the amount charged for water supply at Rs.
449 of 1955, arising out of the judgment and order dated March 24, 1955, of the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, Seventh Court, Dadar, Bombay in Case No.
The letter also stated that the supply of water had been withheld by the landlord by allowing the Municipality to disconnect the water companynection for number payment of municipal dues.
He was sentenced to undergo one days simple imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Rs.
The appellant moved the High Court for a certificate that this was a fit case for appeal to this Court, which was refused by a Division Bench on May 16, 1955.
11 4 0 only, being the fee for doing so, if the owners companysent was produced.
Hence, this appeal.
after a trial by the 7th Presidency Magistrate, Dadar, by his judgment and order dated March 24, 1955.
The appellant was companyvicted.
The appellant moved the High Court of Bombay in revision against the order of companyviction and sentence aforesaid.
Thereafter, the appellant moved this Court for special leave which was granted on October 10, 1955.
The Act came into force on February 13, 1948.
The tenancy appears to have been recorded in her name some time in 1951.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 22, 1955, of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revision Application No.
Before receiving this answer from the Municipality, the tenant got a letter written to the appellant, through a pleader, asking him to refund Rs.
Rameshwar Nath, S. N. Andley and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellant.
150, and in default of payment, to undergo one months simple imprison ment.
The Municipality answered the first respondents companyplaint by a letter dated May 24, 1954, saying that the water companynection companyld be restored on payment of Rs.
The matter was heard by a judge sitting singly, who summarily rejected the application by an order dated April 22, 1955.
The landlord was also called upon to get the water companynection restored, and if he failed to do so, prosecution under 1397 s.24 of the Act, was threatened.
Nothing appears to have happened until April, 1954, when the first respondent brought it to the numberice of the Municipal authorities that the supply of water from the municipal tap had been stopped since 1947.
65 of 1956.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
20 10 0 from the first respondent without giving her the benefit of water supply from the municipal tap.
The appellant is the owner, by purchase in 1945, of certain premises situate in Vile Parle, Bombay.
Under the predecessor in title of the appellant, was a tenant, named Thirumal Rao Potdar, in respect of a room in 1396 those premises, at a monthly rent of Rs.
S. Bindra and R. H. Dhebar, for respondent No.
2 per month, which was included in the total rent aforesaid for three years after the tenancy had been mutated in her name.
As the appellants predecessor in title had made default in payment of municipal taxes, the water supply had been cut off by the Municipality early in May, 1947.
As the appellant had refused or neglected to have the water companynection restored, the tenant filed a petition of companyplaint on June 14, 1954, for the prosecution of the appellant under s. 24 of the Act.
Satyanarayan, for respondent No.
The said premises used to enjoy the amenity of water supply from a municipal tap.
215/S of 1955.
After the, appellaiits purchase, the tenant aforesaid companytinued to hold the tenancy on those very terms.
February 20.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA J. The only question for determination in this appeal, is whether an offence punishable under s. 24 1 4 of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act LVII of 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act , has been brought home to the appellant.
The facts of this case are short and simple.
20 including water rate of Rs.
Thus, the landlord the appellant went on receiving the monthly rent of Rs.
Since after that, the tenants including the said Thirumal Rao, had the use of well water only from a neigh bouring tenant.
