1. The Petitioner is the owner of House No. 27, Picket Cross Road, Princess Street, Bombay. A Sanitary Inspector attached to the Bombay Municipality inspected on 8-2-1954 the passage on the ground floor of that building. Thereafter notices were served upon the petitioner and one Kodumal Rewachand under Section 381 (1) (ii), Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 3 of 1888.

By the notices the petitioner and Kodumal Rewachand were asked to abate the nuisance committed in the passage by removing articles such as chairs, benches and tables kept in the passage on the ground floor. The notices were not complied with.

The Sanitary Inspector again visited the premises on 11-2-1954 and he found the articles in the same position in which they were on 8-2-1954. Thereafter a complaint was filed against the petitioner and the said Kodumal charging them with having committed offences under Section 381 (1) (ii), Bombay Municipal Corporation Act.

The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge. He contended that house No. 27, Picket Cross Road, Princess Street, had been purchased by him and at the time of the purchase a part of the passage had been let out by the previous owner to the second accused Kodumal Rewa-chand, and he said Kodumal was utilizing the passage for carrying on the business of a typist, and for that purpose he had put chairs, two tables and a bench in the passage and that two typists were working in the passage.

2. It appears from the evidence that house No. 27, Picket Cross Road, is a building which is largely occupied by lawyers practising in the Court of Small Causes and the clients of those lawyers have to visit the lawyers. In the passage a large number of persons who visit the typists for getting their typing work done also congregate, and the tenants who have to go to the upper floors of the building find it very difficult to pass through the passage because of the obstruction caused by the articles kept by Kodumal Rewa-chand in the passage.

It appears that a complaint was received in 1952 by the Municipality about the nuisance caused by the large number of persons congregating in the passage and obstructing the passage of the persons desirous of going to the upper floors of the building, and thereupon the Assistant Health Officer of the Municipality visited the premises.

Notices were served in January 1953 upon the accused calling upon him to remove the furniture which was put in the passage. But no attempt was made to remove the furniture for more than one year, and thereafter a notice was served upon the accused on 8-2-1954.

3. The learned trial Magistrate on a consideration of the evidence held that the chairs, tables and the bench kept in the passage which is specially meant for persons, especially going to and coming down from the upper floor, constituted nuisance.

He further held that the passage was not meant for keeping odd things by a tenant to whom the premises had been given on a monthly rental. He observed

"The old landlord, for getting more money it seems, had rented out the premises to a typist without caring to see whether the other tenants occupying the upper floors would be inconvenienced or not, and the first accused (the petitioner) had continued to collect rent from accused No. 2. Even after the notice was served upon him he had not taken any steps to evict the second accused from the premises".

In the view of the learned trial Magistrate therefore the petitioner not having abated the nuisance was liable to be convicted and punished for not having complied with the notice given under Section 381 (1) (ii), Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. The learned Magistrate accordingly convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 15/-.

4. In this revision application filed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate, Mr. Shastri on behalf of the first accused contended that the second accused was a tenant of the petitioner and that he was carrying on a lawfu