Skip to content


Piare Lal Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in38Ind.Cas.308
AppellantPiare Lal
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
u.p. municipalities act (ii of 1916), sections 274, 2, (11), construction of - 'occupier', meaning of--inter-pretation of statutes. - - murray is the best authority, and on consulting his dictionary i find that occupier' is a person who takes or holds or is in actual possession of a piece of property such as house or land. i am not satisfied that piare lal can in any sense be considered to be the occupier of this temple......is clear to me from the evidence on this file and connected municipal files that the late adhikari held piare lal responsible for the upkeep and cleanliness of the temple and all work connected with it.' this, in my opinion, does not bring piare lal within the term 'occupier' as used in the act above mentioned. in section 2, clause (11), of the act a definition is given of the word 'occupier' and we are told that it includes an owner in actual occupation of his own land or building. piare lal certainly cannot come under this meaning of the word 'occupier'. the definition, however, is not exhaustive, and it remains to be seen whether this word cannot be properly held to include a person holding the position of piare lal. no definition from any legal dictionary has been plased before me,.....
Judgment:

George Knox, J.

1. One Piare Lal has been convicted of an offence under Section 274 of the United Provinces Municipalities Act of 1916 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20. He lias applied to this Court in revision and contends that he is not an occupier.' of the building from which rubbish has been thrown into one of the streets of Muttra. The District Magistrate, who upheld the order of the Trying Magistrate, in his judgment says that 'it is clear to me from the evidence on this file and connected Municipal files that the late adhikari held Piare Lal responsible for the upkeep and cleanliness of the temple and all work connected with it.' This, in my opinion, does not bring Piare Lal within the term 'occupier' as used in the Act above mentioned. In Section 2, Clause (11), of the Act a definition is given of the word 'occupier' and we are told that it includes an owner in actual occupation of his own land or building. Piare Lal certainly cannot come under this meaning of the word 'occupier'. The definition, however, is not exhaustive, and it remains to be seen whether this word cannot be properly held to include a person holding the position of Piare Lal. No definition from any legal dictionary has been plased before me, and I have had to resort to the meaning of the word as ordinarily used in the English language. For this perhaps Mr. Murray is the best authority, and on consulting his dictionary I find that occupier' is a person who takes or holds or is in actual possession of a piece of property such as house or land. This is the only meaning of the several meanings given in the dictionary which can in any way be applied to the present case. Even if the word occupier could be held to cover Piare Lal because he is responsible for the upkeep and cleanliness of the temple and all work connected with it, all that we have on the record is that the late adhikari held Piare Lal responsible for this. There is a present adhikari named Chhagan Lal. There is nothing in the judgment to show that Ohhagan Lal holds Piare Lal responsible for these several works. I am not satisfied that Piare Lal can in any sense be considered to be the occupier of this temple. The Municipal Act is a Local Act and must be strictly construed in favour of the subject. The offence of which Piare Lal has been convicted is not established by the evidence. I set aside the conviction and order passed under Section 274 of the Municipalities Act. The fine, if paid, will be refunded.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //