Harries, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition for revision of an order passed by a Municipal Magistrate convicting the petitioners under Schedule XVIII Rule 4, Sub -rule (1), Calcutta Municipal Act, and sentencing them each to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and in default of payment of the fine each to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
(2.) THE petitioners were the owners of certain property known as 85 Kali Kumar Banerjee Lane. These premises were let to the Calcutta Corporation at which a school was carried on under the direction of the Corporation. It was alleged by the Corporation that the premises were in a deplorable state of disrepair and eventually the Corporation served a notice on the petitioners under Rule 4, Sub -rule (1) of Schedule XVIII, Calcutta Municipal Act calling upon them to secure and repair the premises. In this notice details of the necessary repairs were stated. The Corporation said that they were prepared to give vacant possession of the premises to enable the repairs to be executed, whereas the petitioners' case is that they could not execute the repairs by reason of the fact that the Corporation remained in possession. However, it is clear that on 23rd December 1917, the Corporation lodged a complaint which came in due course before a Municipal Magistrate. On 29th September 1948, the Municipal Magistrate made the following order: Heard pleader for the accused and also the pleader for the Corporation. Both the parties agree that the building is in a dangerous state. The Corporation is prepared to give facilities for necessary repairs as per requisition mentioned in the notice. It is therefore ordered that (1) Corporation will shift its school elsewhere temporarily, (2) the owner will allow the Corporation to occupy the so -called outhouse, (3) the repairs will be executed in course of 2 months under the supervision of the Corporation officials and the main entrance of the house will be in their charge, To 24th November 1948.
(3.) ON 24th November 1948, the case came again before the learned Magistrate, but neither of the petitioners appeared. It is clear that in the order of 29th September 1948, the case was expressly adjourned to 24th November 1948, and the Magistrate points out that at the earlier hearing the petitioners were represented by their pleader and they were informed by the Bench Clerk of the date of the adjourned hearing. It is not suggested that the petitioners were unaware of the date of the adjourned hearing.;