KANAIYALAL CHANDULAL MONIM versus INDUMATI T. POTDAR AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 1394 · Decided: 20-02-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1958 
Bui Hfra Devi 
and Others 
"· 
The Official 
Assignee of Bt'1nbay 
Gajendragadkar J. 
1958 
February 20. 
1394 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1958] 
of this case, we think that the fair order as to 
costs of this appeal would be that the costs should 
abide the final result in the appeal before the High 
Ccurt at Bombay. 
Appeal allowed. 
Case remanded. 
KANAIYALAL CHANDULAL MONIM 
v. 
INDUMATI T. POTDAR AND ANOTHER 
(B. P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM SUBBA RAO JJ.) 
Municipal Law-Water Supply-Landlord withholding essen-
tial supply-Tenant not in enjoyment after enactment-Conviction 
of landlord-Legality-Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House 
Rates Control Act (Bom. LVll of 1947), s. 24. 
Section 24( 1) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House 
Rates Control Act, 1947, provides: "No landlord either himse![ 
or through any person acting or purporting to act on his behalf 
shall without just or sufficient cause cut off or withhold any 
essential supply or service enjoyed by the tenant in respect of the 
premises let to him." 
By Explanation II : "For the purposes of 
this section, withholding any essential supply or service shall 
include acts or omissions attributable to the landlord on account 
of which the essential supply or service is cut off by the local 
authority or any other competent autliority." 
The appeallant was prosecuted under s. 24 of the Bombay 
Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, on J 
complaint by the tenant, the first respondent, on June 14, 1954, 
for having refused or neglected to have water connection made 
for the premises. 
The water supply to the premises was cut off 
by the Municipality in 1947 due to the default in payment of the 
municipal taxes by the predecessor-in~title of the appellant, but 
the tenants, including the first -respondent, continued in occupa-
tion of the premises without having the use of municipal wator 
s11pply. 
It was contended for the appellant that his conviction 
was invalid because ( 1) he was not liable for the default made 
by his predecessor-in-title, and (2) in any case, s. 24 was not 
applicable inasmuch as the supply of municipal water was not 
en joyed by the first respondent when the Act came into force : 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1395 
· 
Held: (1) that though the appellant might not have been 
1958 
directly responsible for the cutting off of the supply of municipal 
water, it was within his power to get the supply r~stored by the 
Kanaiyalal 
Municipality on payment of the prescribed fee and m so far as he' Chand11lal Monim 
omitted to do so, such an omission was attributable to him within 
v. 
Explanation II of s. 24 of the Act, and therefore he was with- Indumati T. Potdar 
holding iln essential supply within the meaning of s. 24 ( 1 ) of the 
and Another 
Act; 
(2) that under s. 24 of the Act the essential supply shoui<l 
have been available for the use of the tenant at some time when 
the Act was in force, and as, in the instant case, the first respon· 
dent was not in enjoyment of the supply of municipal water at 
any time after the coming into effect of Act, the appellant could 
not be convicted under that section. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No. 65 of 1956. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated April 22, 1955, of the Bombay High Court 
in Criminal Revision Application No. 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. 215/S of 
1955. 
Rameshwar Nath, S. N. Andley and J. B. Dada-
chanji, for the appellant. 
T. Satyanarayan, for respondent No. L 
N .. S. Bindra and R. H. Dhebar, 
for respondent 
No .. 2. 
1958. 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 L VII of 1947 (hereinafter 
referred to as the Act), has been brought home to the 
appellant. 
The facts of this case are short and simple. The ap-
pellant 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 
Sinha J. 
1396 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1958] 
19ss 
those premises, at a monthly rent of Rs. 20 including 
. 
water rate of Rs. 2. 
After the appellant's purchase, 
C' Kdanla1y1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.