B. N. Sapru, J. - (1.) THE two petitioners Kripa Ram and his son Shiv Kumar Mittal had filed the present writ petition. Kripa Ram is now dead. Kripa Ram was the owner of house no. 1/105 Mohalla Kayastwara, Deoband, district Saharanpur. Sri Jagdish Chand Tyagi was their tenant.
(2.) AN application was filed by Jagdish Chand Tyagi before the district Magistrate, Saharanpur praying that he be granted an authorisation to prosecute Kripa Ram and his son Shiv Kumar Mittal for having committed offences punishable under sections 26 (1) and 26 (4) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The authorisation was sought in view of the provisions of section 33 (1) of the Act as no prosecution can be instituted except on a complaint authorised by the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate after notice to the petitioners authorised the filing of the complaint by Jagdish Chand Tyagi, against the petitioners for having contravened the provisions of sections 26 (1) and 26 (4) of the Act which were said to be punishable under section 31 of the Act. The basis on which the authorisation was sought by Jagdish Chand Tyagi was that the landlord Kripa Ram used to get the rent collected through his son Shiv Kumar Mittal who never gave a receipt for the rent received by the landlord. This was said to be a contravention of section 26 (4) of the Act which requires a landlord to give a receipt for rent payable to and received by him. The offence under section 26 (1) was said to be that the petitioners had got bricks stacked on a chabutara in the tenancy of Jagdish Chand Tyagi. The defence of the petitioners before the District Magistrate was denial of all the facts asserted by Jagdish Chand Tyagi. It was further stated that Jagdish Chand Tyagi had not paid rent and consequently no question of issuing receipt to him arose.
(3.) AGGRIEVED against the order of the District Magistrate authorising the sanction, the petilioners have filed the instant writ petition. So far as the offence under section 26 (1) is concerned, it is clear that what is laid down in the Act is that no landlord shall without lawful authority or excuse cut off, withhold or reduce any of the amenities enjoyed by the tenant. The fact that the landlord has committed a nuisance by storing bricks on a chabutara in the tenancy of a tenant would not amount to cutting off or withholding or reducing any of the amenities enjoyed by the tenant. As such no offence under section 26 (1) is made out. No prosecution could be launched against either of the petitioner for having committed violation of the provisions of section 26 (1) of the Act.;