SHIBLAL TANTI Vs. SUSHITAL CHANDRA DEY
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sushital Chandra Dey
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This Rule is not opposed. It arises of a proceeding under Section 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 under Section 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.
(2.) On appeal by the present Petitioner, the learned Rent Controller's decision was affirmed. Hence the present Rule.
(3.) 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 under Section 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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.