(1.) IN this application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as also under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the three petitioners pray for quashing of the proceeding of R. C. Case No. 103 of 1976 initiated against them on a complaint filed by the opposite party under section 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and now pending before the Additional Rent Controller Barrackpore.

(2.) IN the complaint it has been stated that Mrinalini Ghose, the petitioner No. 1, is the owner of premises No. P-236,/ Lake town and the complainant is a tenant in respect of a flat on the first floor of the said premises. The other two petitioners are the sons of the petitioner No. 1. The petitioners stopped the water supply to the complainant flat no November 11, 1976 which was temporarily restored at the intervention of the Officer-in-Charge of Lake town Police Station. On December 11, 1976 there was a reduction in the supply of water and on December 13, 1976 the three petitioners completely stopped the water supply thereby causing great inconvenience to the complainant.

The learned Rent Controller, barrackpore entertained the complaint on, December 24, 1976 and ultimately by an order dated July 27, 1977 transferred the case to the learned Additional Rent Controller for disposal. The Additional Rent Controller recorded the statement of the complainant on August 23, 1977 and issued summons upon the petitioners calling upon them to appear before him. The petitioners entered appearance and filed an application challenging the maintainability of the proceeding. Having failed there the petitioners moved this Court and obtained the present rule.

(3.) MR. Biswaranjan Ghosal, the learned Advocate for the petitioners firstly contended that Sri D. P. Chatterjee, to whom the case was transferred on July 27, 1977 and who issued process against the petitioners, was not duly appointed to be an additional Rent Controller under section 26 (2) of the Act and as such the issuance of process against the petitioners and all subsequent proceedings are bad in law. To controvert the above contention of Mr. Ghosal Smt. Krishna Ghose, the learned advocate appearing for the State has produced a copy of the notification dated February 27, 1976 issued by the Government of West Bengal which shows the valid appointment of Mr. D. P. Chatterjee as Additional Rent Controller for Barrackpore Sub-division of the District of 24-Paraganas. Another notification dated January 10, 1978 has also been produced to indicate that Sri S. Raha, who is now in seisin of the case, replaced Sri Chatterjee as Additional Rent Controller of Barrackpore. The above two notifications clearly show that at the material time Sri D. P. Chatterjee was the duly appointed Additional Rent Controller of Barrackpore and that there is no substance in the contention of Mr. Ghosal.

(4.) MR. Ghosal next contended that the proceeding initiated against the petitioners is barred by limitation under section 468 (2) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). In elaborating his contention Mr. Ghosal submitted that the non-supply of water to a tenant is an offence under section 31 of the Act for which a person is liable to be prosecuted and consequently the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including section 468 thereof, would apply to a complaint filed under section 31 of the Act. Mr. Ghosal submitted that in the instant case though the complaint was filed on December 24, 1976, cognizance was taken long after the period of limitation on August 22, 1977. In support of his contention that willful disturbance in water supply creates an offence punishable under section 31, Mr. Ghosal relied upon a Bench Decision of this Court in the case of Pulin Krishna Paul v. Sishupati Chakraborty, reported in AIR 1953 Calcutta, Page 185. In that case, Harries, C. J. speaking for the Court observed as foll