Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a criminal prosecution under Section 24 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The appellant was the owner of premises in Vile Parle, Bombay, having purchased them in 1945. A tenant, Thirumal Rao Potdar, occupied a room under the appellant's predecessor-in-title at a monthly rent of Rs 20 including a water rate of Rs 2. The premises had enjoyed municipal tap water supply until early May 1947, when the municipality cut off the water because the predecessor-in-title had defaulted in payment of municipal taxes. After the appellant purchased the property, the tenant continued on the same terms, but from May 1947 onwards the tenants had only well water from a neighbouring tenant. Thirumal Rao died around 1950, and his widow, the first respondent, continued in occupation without municipal water supply, paying rent plus a permitted increase. The Act came into force on February 13, 1948. The tenancy was recorded in the first respondent's name sometime in 1951. In April 1954, the first respondent complained to the municipality and was informed on May 24, 1954 that water connection could be restored on payment of Rs 11-4-0 as fee with the owner's consent. The tenant's pleader then wrote to the appellant demanding refund of water charges and restoration of connection. When the appellant refused or neglected to act, the tenant filed a complaint on June 14, 1954. The trial court convicted the appellant on March 24, 1955, sentencing him to one day's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 150. The Bombay High Court summarily rejected the revision on April 22, 1955, and a Division Bench refused a certificate on May 16, 1955. The Supreme Court granted special leave on October 10, 1955. The Supreme Court considered whether the offence under Section 24(1)(4) was made out. Section 24(1) prohibits a landlord from cutting off or withholding any essential supply or service enjoyed by the tenant. Explanation II, inserted by Bombay Act 61 of 1953, includes acts or omissions attributable to the landlord on account of which the essential supply is cut off by the local authority. The court held that the appellant's failure to pay the restoration fee and get the connection restored was an omission attributable to him under Explanation II, and thus he was withholding an essential supply. However, the court held that Section 24 also required that the essential supply should have been enjoyed by the tenant at some time when the Act was in force. The first respondent had not enjoyed municipal water supply at any time after the Act came into force, because the supply had been cut off in May 1947, before the Act. The court rejected the argument that 'enjoyed' meant 'had the right to enjoy', stating that actual physical use or availability for use was necessary. The court also observed that construing Section 24 to cover pre-Act cut-offs would amount to ex post facto legislation prohibited by Article 20(1). Accordingly, the court set aside the conviction and sentence and allowed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Statutory Offence - Withholding Essential Supply - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 24(1), Explanation II - The landlord's failure to pay the municipal restoration fee and get water connection restored after supply had been cut off due to predecessor's tax default constituted an omission attributable to the landlord within Explanation II, amounting to withholding of an essential supply. Held that the first ingredient of Section 24(1) was established on facts (Paras Not mentioned). B) Criminal Law - Essential Supply - Temporal Enjoyment Requirement - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 24(1) - For an offence under Section 24(1), the essential supply must have been enjoyed by the tenant at some time when the Act was in force, not merely in the remote past before the Act. Here, municipal water supply had been cut off in May 1947, before the Act came into force on February 13, 1948, and the tenant never enjoyed it thereafter, so the second essential ingredient was absent. Held that conviction could not be sustained (Paras Not mentioned). C) Statutory Interpretation - Meaning of 'Enjoyed' - Actual Use vs Legal Right - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 24(1), Section 24(3) - The term 'enjoyed by the tenant' in Section 24(1) imports actual physical use or availability for use, not merely a juridical right to enjoy. Sub-section (3) uses 'has been in enjoyment' indicating recent enjoyment until cut off, not remote past. Held that the tenant's right to water included in rent did not satisfy 'enjoyed' without actual use (Paras Not mentioned). D) Constitutional Law - Ex Post Facto Legislation - Article 20(1), Constitution of India - If Section 24 were construed to cover essential supply enjoyed only before the Act came into force, it would make a non-penal act penal retrospectively, contrary to Article 20(1). The court declined to adopt such a construction. Held that the legislature did not intend unconstitutional retrospective penal operation (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the offence under Section 24(1)(4) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was made out against the landlord where the municipal water supply had been cut off before the Act came into force and the tenant never enjoyed it after commencement; whether the landlord's omission to restore connection constituted withholding under Explanation II; and whether 'enjoyed by the tenant' requires actual physical enjoyment after the Act's commencement.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside. The Supreme Court held that though the landlord's omission to restore the water connection was attributable to him under Explanation II, the essential supply must have been enjoyed by the tenant at some time when the Act was in force. Since the first respondent had not enjoyed municipal water supply after the Act came into force, the offence under Section 24(1)(4) was not made out. The appellant was acquitted.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- landlord cannot cut off or withhold essential supply enjoyed by tenant
- withholding includes acts or omissions attributable to landlord
- essential supply must have been enjoyed by tenant at some time after Act commencement
- 'enjoyed' means actual physical use
- not mere right
- retrospective penal operation violates Article 20(1)
- omission to restore supply may be withholding but conviction requires both ingredients
