Skip to content


Nanda Lal Roy and anr. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Civil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1931Cal5
AppellantNanda Lal Roy and anr.
RespondentCorporation of Calcutta
Excerpt:
- .....that they are the landlords of the premises and that the premises have been let by them to one pradumna misser and that in such circumstances they cannot be held liable if the premises are used for the purpose of keeping horses for hire and milch cows for selling milk without a license. it would appear that the premises have been let by these two petitioners to one pradumna misser. it would also appear and it is denied that pradumna misser has been fined rs. 25 in respect of the same premises and for the same offence for which the two petitioners have also been fined. the learned advocate who appears for the petitioners contends that the landlords cannot be said to have permitted the premises to be used for the purposes in contravention of section 386, calcutta municipal act. as far.....
Judgment:

Cuming, J.

1. In the case out of which this rule has arisen the two petitioners, Nanda Lal Roy and Pulin Krishna Roy, were fined Rs. 50 each under Section 386(1) (c), Calcutta Municipal Act. for permitting certain premises, namely No. 37, Chittaranjan Avenue South, to be used for the purpose of keeping cattle and horses for hire, for sale and for the sale of the produce thereof without a license from the Chief Executive Officer. The two petitioners contend that they are not in actual occupation of the premises, that they are the landlords of the premises and that the premises have been let by them to one Pradumna Misser and that in such circumstances they cannot be held liable if the premises are used for the purpose of keeping horses for hire and milch cows for selling milk without a license. It would appear that the premises have been let by these two petitioners to one Pradumna Misser. It would also appear and it is denied that Pradumna Misser has been fined Rs. 25 in respect of the same premises and for the same offence for which the two petitioners have also been fined. The learned advocate who appears for the petitioners contends that the landlords cannot be said to have permitted the premises to be used for the purposes in contravention of Section 386, Calcutta Municipal Act. As far as I can see this contention is well founded. The facts are that the premises have been let to Pradumna Misser and he has used them for certain purposes which require a license to be taken. It has not been shown to me that the landlords when letting the land to him permitted him to use it for those purposes. It has not been also shown that the landlords could have prevented him from using the premises for those purposes. I do not think that in the circumstances of the present case the landlords could be held to have permitted the premises to be used for the purposes alleged by the prosecution.

2. The convictions and sentences are therefore set aside and the two petitioners are acquitted. The fines, if paid, will be refunded.


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