MODI, J.—This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for malicious prosecution.

2. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs case as narrated in the plaint is like this :

On 26-12-56 the defendant-respondent filed a complaint under sec. 41/44 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act, against the plaintiffs in the Court of the City Magistrate, Ajmer, alleging therein that plaintiff No. 1 Brijlal was the landlord of the defendant, that plaintiff No. 2 Jagmohan was the rent collecting agent of plaintiff No. 1 and that on 29-11-56 the plaintiffs had cut off electric connection of the premises occupied by the defendant and were therefore liable to prosecution. The complaint was tried by the First Class Magistrate, Ajmer, who acquitted plaintiff No. 2 but convicted plaintiff No. 1 under sec. 41/44 of the Act and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 1000/-. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer, acquitted plaintiff No. 1 also. The plaintiffs case further is that the complaint filed by the defendant was without reasonable and probable cause, false to his knowledge and actuated by malice. The plaintiffs further pleaded that there was never the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document