The liability for violation of Section 430 IPC and Section 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 is not limited to landlords, but extends to anyone who commits the acts prohibited by those sections.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application at the instance of the complainant petitioner is against the order dated 20/9/1984 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta in Case No. C/94 of 1984 discharging the accused opposite patty Nos. 1 and 2 under Section, 430 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 2 ) COMPLAINANT petitioner filed a petition of complaint in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on 7/3/1983 alleging commission of an offence under Section 430 of the Indian Penal code against the accused opposite parties. The allegation in the said petition of complaint inter alia are that the complainant petitioner is a tenant under one Amiya Kumar Roy in respect of the back portion of a three storeyed building being premises no. 255a, Chittaranjan Avenue, P. S. Jorasanko, Calcutta-6 consisting of 7 rooms one kitchen and one bath-room in each floor since 1950 and he has been enjoying all facilities including water, electricity etc. in respect of the said tenancy. The complainant petitioner used to get water supply in an the floors by water pipe lines throughout the whole day and night. The previous landlord of the complainant petitioner, the grand father of the present landlord, constructed one pucca reservoir in, the ground floor of the front portion of the said building and water used to be pumped up in the overhead tank which is situate on the front portion of the top floor of the said building which is now under the possession and control of the accused opposite party and landlord Amiya Kumar Roy and from the said overhead tank of the top floor of the front portion water used to be supplied to the petitioner through pipe lines. The further allegation is that on 23-21983 at about 7. 00 A. M. the accused opposite parties totally stopped the supply of water to the petitioner tenant without-any rhyme or reason. The complainant lodged a diary with the Jorasanko P. S. being G. D. No. 2385 dated 23/2/1983 and after intervention of local people the landlord supplied water on 24-2-1983 and onwards. On 2/3/1983 at about 9. 00 P. M. the complainant petitioner again noticed that there was no water in the tap and he asked the accused opposite parties to supply water when the accused opposite parties abused the petitioner in filthy and abusive language and stated that they had already fixed stop-cock on the water pipe line and they would not supply water any more. The petitioner lodged a diary regarding the said incident. The accused opposite parties have thus C9mmiltedan

offence under Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 3 ) ON receipt of the said petition of complaint the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta took cognizance of the alleged offence and referred the matter to the police for enquiry and report and transferred the case to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8ih Court, Calcutta. After enquiry police submitted a report and upon a perusal of the said report the learned Magistrate issued process against the accused opposite parties under Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code. On receipt of the summons the accused opposite parties appeared before the learned Magistrate and after commencement of the trial the complainant petitioner examined 5 witnesses to prove his case. Thereafter on 15/9/1984 the accused opposite parties filed a petition under Section 245 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for discharge of the accused opposite parties and the learned Magistrate after hearing the parties passed the impugned order of discharge under Section 245 (1) on the ground that the accused persons are not the landlords liable to supply water to supply water to the complaint petitioner. The learned Magistrate seems to be of the opinion that as the accused persons are not landlords, the petition of complaint by the tenant under Section 430, Indian Penal Code is misconceived and not maintainable. In that view of the matter the learned Magistrate