The sending of a defamatory reply to a notice through registered post to the complainant's counsel, who in turn communicated it to the complainant's partners and employees, constituted publication to a third party.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, S. Mohinder Singh Saluja is the owner/landlord of the property no. 6/6 W. E. A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi. M/s Vanson Shoes, a registered partnership firm, to start with, was the tenant of the part of the ground floor of the said premises but in the year 1971, they became the tenant of the whole of the ground floor, including the mezzanine floor at a consolidated rent of Rs 435. 00 per mensem Subsequently the rent was increased to Rs. 515. 00 including the water charges. The rent has since been paid to the landlord till the tiling of the present complaint u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 2 ) THE case set up by the tenant in brief is that at the time of the creation of the tenancy, it was agreed between the parties that the respondent landlord will carry out the white wash and minor repairs of the tenancy premises. In spite of the repealed requests and reminders, the landlord failed to get the premises in good shape as per the terms of the rent note. Aggrieved from the behaviour of the landlord, the tenants got a notice dated 15-7-83 served on him through their counsel. Inreply dated 21-10-83, the landlord while denying the averments also made the following allegations against the complainant-tenant:

"your client with his bad intentions set on fire the premises after removing the valuable goods, boxes, etc. and illegally and by playing fraud, etc. your client extracted money from the Insurance company after damaging the premises. ". It is the case of the complainant-tenant that this statement amounts to defamation of the complainant and its partners which prima facie : (a) is false to the knowledge of the accused himself; (b) the imputation has been made to defame the partners of the complainant and cause harm to them in reputation and business; (e) the imputation lowers the character, moral and reputation of the partners of the complainant. The imputation on the face of it is disgraceful ; (d) The accused made the imputations knowingly that the same would cause harm to the complainant and its partners and to their business. The accused was not required by Jaw cr otherwise to make any such imputation ; and (e) the defamatory statement made in the abovesaid reply amounts to its publication. The complainant further goes on to state that no doubt there was a fire in the godown which is situated in the tenancy premises but the said fire was accidental and occurred at the dead of the night when none of the partners of the complainant of its employees were present. At that time, the accused himself who resides on the first floor of the premises informed the police, the Fire Brigade and also the partners of the complainant. But to this minor fire, goods of the complainant were destroyed but no loss was caused to the premises. Later or, the cause of the fire was investigated by the Police, the fire brigade authorities and the Insurance company. All were satisfied that the fire was accidental and was caused by short circuit and it was under these circumtances that the claim of the claimant was paid by the Insurance-company.

( 3 ) THE imputation now made by the accused-landlord is after 3 years of the incident when the accused had no occasion for the same except to defame and coerce the complainant to agree in the increase or rent of the premises. These very defamatory allegations have been again repeated in the reply sent by Counsel on behalf of the landlord on 16-9-83. The said reply has been read by the staff and employees of the complainant, which has lowered their reputation and image in the eye of the employees and other persons.

( 4 ) THE complainant has also alleged that in spite of the use of the repeated defamatory allegations in the replies to the notices of the complainant, the accused has again followed these very observations in his petition for eviction which is pending in the court of Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi. The only intention of the accused in continuing and repeating a