C.S. Mani vs Vijaya Pillai

Anantanarayanan, J.—It appears to me to be very clear that, upon the very facts as found by the learned Special Honorary Presidency

Magistrate in C.C. No. 5283 of 1962, the conviction of the revision petitioner (accused) of offence under S. 426, Indian Penal Code, is not

sustainable in law, and will have to be set aside. In view of the narrow ground upon which the propriety of the conviction has been assailed, I

desire to say nothing, in this context, upon the protracted history of the prior relationship between this landlord (revision petitioner) and his tenants

one of whom is the respondent. It may be, as the learned Magistrate observes, that the conduct of the landlord (revision petitioner) in respect of his

tenants has been illegal, vindictive and oppressive. But the fact remains, that if a landlord fails to pay electricity dues, even assuming that the failure

is deliberate, and thereby causes a situation in which the Madras Electricity Supply Corporation is constrained to cut off electricity supply to the

tenants for non payment of such dues, the landlord would certainly not be committing mischief as defined in S. 425, Indian Penal Code. He may be

committing a tort or civil wrong. He may also be contravening the explicit provisions of S. 17 (1) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent

Control) Act, 1960. The tenant is not at all without redress, in this regard, as under S. 33 (1) of the Act, a contravention of S. 17 (1) is punishable

by a fine which can be very heavy. But, the act of the Madras Electricity Supply Corporation in cutting off the electricity supply is certainly not an

act of destruction to property, or causing illegal change in the property, as the Corporation has a right to cut off supply for non-payment of dues.

Thus the landlord cannot even be convicted of abetment of mischief committed by another, nor on the facts, can it be claimed for a moment that

the landlord directly committed mischief. The learned Public Prosecutor concedes that the situation would be that which I have outlined above, and

does not seek to defend the conviction. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence are both set aside and the revision is allowed. The fine, if paid,

must be refunded.