Shiblal Tanti vs Sushital Chandra Dey

P.N. Mookerjee, J.—This Rule is not opposed. It arises of a proceeding u/s 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Opposite party No. 2, who was the tenant of the disputed premises, was the applicant under the said section. The present Petitioner was impleaded in the said proceeding apparently as the agent of the landlady who was made opposite party No. 1 therein. The prayer in the said application was for restoration of electric connection, which had been cut off contrary to the provisions of the above section, There was no other prayer in the aforesaid application, but the learned Rent Controller, apparently taking it to be a full-fledged proceeding u/s 31, not only directed restoration of electric connection which had, of course, been done and the lines reconnected in the meantime, but also penalised the present Petitioner by a fine of Rs. 25, in default, simple imprisonment for three months, upon the finding that ha had cut off the aforesaid electric connection.

On appeal by the present Petitioner, the learned Rent Controller''s decision was affirmed. Hence the present Rule.

The material portion of the order of the learned Rent Controller appears as follows:

Considering all these facts and circumstances I hold that the case of the 1st party (applicant) has been established beyond, reasonable doubt. I, therefore, find_second party No, 2 Shib Lal Panwalla guilty u/s 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, convict him and sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 25, in default, to simple imprisonment for 3 weeks. As regards re-connection 1st party is permitted to obtain a separate meter or to proceed separately against the heirs of Hamidan Bibi (landlady). The line already stands connected. It is now a question of arranging supply of current and Consequent readjustment with the landlord.

So far as this order for restoration is concerned, there is no grievance made against it by the present Petitioner and it, therefore, should not and need not be touched. This part of the Rent Controller''s order which also was affirmed by the appellate authority will, therefore, stand confirmed.

As regards, however, the Petitioner''s conviction u/s 31, the matter does not seem to me to have been properly approached by the two tribunals below. The learned Kent Controller evidently proceeded upon the view that to punish a person u/s 31, it was not necessary that he should be either a landlord or a tenant. He may be even a third party, wholly disconnected with the tenancy and having nothing to do either with the landlord or the tenant. Whether this extreme view is possible or permissible under the terms of the statute need not be decided by me in this case, as, in my opinion, the tribunals below do not appear to have approached the question from the point of view of a criminal or quasi-criminal proceeding, which apparently is the proper nature of the proceeding u/s 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The discussion of the. learned appellate authority again, of the evidence in the case, does not seem to be quite reconcilable with his ultimate affirmance of the trial court''s finding against the present Petitioner. On the judgment of the two tribunals below, the matter of the Petitioner''s guilt is not entirely free from doubt, but the said tribunals evidently did not approach it from the point of view of a criminal or quasi-criminal proceeding in which the benefit of doubt should go to the so-called accused. I do not think that so far as the conviction of the Petitioner and the sentence passed upon him on the materials on records are concerned, the same can be truly justified in law.

In this view, I would make this Rule absolute in part, set aside the said conviction and sentence while affirming the order of restoration as passed by the learned Rent Controller. The fine, if paid, will be refunded to the Petitioner.

As there is no appearance on behalf of the opposite party, there will be no order as to costs in this Rule.