J. M. SHETH, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Nadiad Mr. J. D. Desai under sec. 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code recommending to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Nadiad Mr. K. D. Shah in a Criminal Case No. 975 of 1965 directing the accused (landlord) to open the latrine and to allow the complainant (tenant) to use it within a period of one month from the date of the order i. e. 15th November 1965 and if he fails to do so he has to pay a fine of Rs. 0. 25 np. for each day of the breach after the period of one month is over. ( 2 ) THE facts leading rise to this reference are briefly stated as under :-THE accused Narharibhai is a landlord and the complainant Chaturbhai is a tenant. It was the case of the complainant that the accused asked the latrine which he was using as a tenant and the accused did not allow the complainant to use that latrine and he has thereby committed an offence punishable under sec. 24 of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate found that the tenant was deprived of essential service enjoyed by him in respect of the premises let to him without just or sufficient cause. He therefore found that the accused had committed an offence which is punishable under sub-sec. (4) of sec. 24 of the Act. Besides that order of conviction and sentence be parsed also the impugned order. The accused being dissatisfied with both the orders filed a Criminal Revision Petition No. 94 of 1966 in the Sessions Court of Kaira at Nadiad. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the revision petition found that the order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused under sec. 24 (4) of the Act was legal and proper. So far as the impugned order is concerned he found that that order was without jurisdiction and hence he has made the report In question. ( 3 ) THE learned Government Pleader Mr. Sompura appearing on behalf of the State and the learned advocate Mr. N. R. Israni (for Mr. N. H. Bhatt ). So far as the impugned order is concerned he found that that order was without jurisdiction and hence he has made the report In question. ( 3 ) THE learned Government Pleader Mr. Sompura appearing on behalf of the State and the learned advocate Mr. N. R. Israni (for Mr. N. H. Bhatt ). appearing on behalf of the original accused contended that the impugned order could not be passed by the Judicial Magistrate in a criminal case like the instant case. Such an order could be passed in a Civil proceeding by the Civil Court if a proper application is made by a tenant as contemplated by sub-sec. (2) of sec. 24 of the Act after the Court makes an inquiry as contemplated by sub-sec. (3) of sec. 24 of the Act. The Court that could entertain and hear such an application would be the Court contemplated by sec. 28 of the Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Sub-sec. (1) of sec. 24 of the Act states:-NO landlord either himself or through any person acting or purporting to act on his behalf shall without just or sufficient cause cut off or withhold any essential supply or service enjoyed by the tenant in respect of the premises let to him. Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 24 of the Act states:-A tenant in occupation of the premises may if the landlord has contravened the provisions of sub-sec. (1 ). make an application to the Court for a direction to restore such supply or service. It is therefore evident that if a tenant wants to move the Court for a direction to be given to the landlord to restore such supply or service he has to take a proceeding and seek the remedy contemplated by that sub-section. If the Court on inquiry finds that the tenant has been in enjoyment of the essential supply or service and that it was cut off or with-held by the landlord without just or sufficient cause the Court shall make an order directing the landlord to restore such supply or service before a date to be specified in the order. If the Court on inquiry finds that the tenant has been in enjoyment of the essential supply or service and that it was cut off or with-held by the landlord without just or sufficient cause the Court shall make an order directing the landlord to restore such supply or service before a date to be specified in the order. Any landlord who fails to restore the supply or service before the date so specified shall for each day during which the default continues thereafter be liable (upon a further direction by the Court to that effect) to file which may extend to one hundred rupees. ( 4 ) A perusal of that sub-section also indicates that it is that Court which has to make an inquiry on receipt of such application from the tenant and that Court is entitled to give directions to the landlord to restore such supply or service before a date to be specified in the order. If the landlord after such an order is passed does not comply with that direction given in that specified period he becomes liable to pay fine for each day during which the default continues subsequent to the date of the expiry of she period and for that purpose also that further direction has to be given by that Court. Any landlord who contravenes the provisions of sub-sec. (1) shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine or with both. That sub-section deals with a criminal liability. The learned Judicial Magistrate was therefore only entitled in a Criminal proceeding to record an order of conviction and to impose sentence as contemplated by that sub-sec. (4 ). He had no jurisdiction to make an inquiry as contemplated by sub-sec. (3) and to pass any order contemplated therein. That inquiry can be made by the Court in a Civil proceeding on receipt of an application as contemplated by sub-sec. (2) of sec. 24 of the Act. 4 Sec. 28 of the Act deals with a question regarding jurisdiction of Courts. The Courts mentioned therein have to decide any application made under the Act and that Court has to deal with any claim or question arising out of this Act or any of its provisions. It therefore means that the special Court referred to in sec. 4 Sec. 28 of the Act deals with a question regarding jurisdiction of Courts. The Courts mentioned therein have to decide any application made under the Act and that Court has to deal with any claim or question arising out of this Act or any of its provisions. It therefore means that the special Court referred to in sec. 28 of the Act can entertain such applications and deal with such questions. It was not within the competence of the learned Judicial Magistrate in a Criminal proceeding to direct the landlord to open the latrine and allow the complainant to use it within a period of one month and if he fails to do so he has to pay a fine of Rs. 0. 25 nps. for each day of the breach after the period of one month is over. That order is passed without any authority or jurisdiction by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Nadiad. It therefore cannot be sustained in law. ( 5 ) REFERENCE is accepted. Rule is made absolute and the order referred to above dated 15-11-1965 is set aside. Rule made absolute. .