JUDGMENT : D.C. Gheewala, J. 1. These revision applications are directed against the order passed by the Small Causes Judge, Baroda, below Exh. 90 in Civil Misc. Application No. 102/75. One Raojibhai Himatlal Barot was the tenant of one Ranchhodbhai Parajapati and it appears that the landlord had unlawfully with-held the supply of Electric Power. In this behalf an application Under section 24 of the Bombay Rent Act, was filed by the tenant. It may be surprising that these proceedings were started in October, 1973 and the order was passed by the learned Judge on 13.9.78. In the said proceedings the landlord was directed to restore the supply by 25.10.78. As the landlord failed to restore the supply as directed, the opponent gave an application Under section 24(3) of the Bombay Rent Act on 13-11-78. While this application was pending, landlord Ranchhodbhai died on 27.4.1979 and the tenant Ravjibhai Himatlal Barot gave an application for bringing the heirs of the deceased landlord Ranchhodbhai on record. The learned Small Cause Judge allowed the said prayer and being aggrieved by the said order, the heirs of the deceased Ranchhodbhai have preferred these two revision applications. Revision application No. 9/80 has been filed by one Neginbhai Ranchhodbhai Prajapati, who claims that he has not inherited any properly from his deceased father Ranchhodbhai. The petitioner in Civil Revision Application No. 118/80 are the other heirs of the deceased Rachhodbhai who have also challenged the impugned order passed by the learned Small Cause Judge. 2. On behalf of the petitioners in both these petitions strong exception was taken to the order passed by the learned Small Cause Judge on the ground that provisions of Section 24 of the Bombay Rent Control Act entail penal liability and us such the heirs of the deceased landlord could not have been held responsible for the alleged act of withholding supply by deceased Ranchhodbhai. According to Mr. Majumudar, who appeared for the petitioner in Revision Application No. 980 and mere Mr. According to Mr. Majumudar, who appeared for the petitioner in Revision Application No. 980 and mere Mr. K.C. Shah, who appeared for the petitioner in Civil Revision Application No. 118/80, it was open to the tenant to file a fresh application claiming therein that the landlord has withheld the supply but he could not have straightaway brought on record the heirs of the deceased for asking the Court to impose a penal liability on the new landlords, who were not themselves responsible for cutting the electric supply. 3. As against this Mr. Mohit Shah, the learned Advocate appearing for the tenant Ravjibhai submitted the act of withholding of supply is a continuing wrong and once it has been established and the Court has found that the supply has been unlawfully cut of, the new landlords who have become landlords by survivorship being heirs of the deceased, the landlords cannot take exception to the order passed by the learned Judge. 4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it will be necessary to reproduce Section 24 of the Bombay Rent Act : "24. (1) 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. (2) A tenant in occupation of the premises may, if the landlord has contravened the provisions of sub-section (1), make an application to the Court for a direction to restore such supply or service. (3) If the Court on inquiry finds that tenant has been in enjoyment of the essential supply or service and that it was cut off or withheld 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 for shall each day during which the default continues thereafter be liable upon a further direction by the Court to that effect to fine which may extend to one hundred rupees. Any landlord who fails to restore the supply or service before the date so specified for shall each day during which the default continues thereafter be liable upon a further direction by the Court to that effect to fine which may extend to one hundred rupees. (4) Any landlord, who contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) shall on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine or with both." Explanation : xx xx xx xx 5. The plain reading of the Section would convince that even Section 24(1) enjoins on the landlord that neither he nor any one on his behalf without just or sufficient cause cut of any essential supply or service enjoyed by the tenant. Sub-section (2) provided that if a tenant who is occupying the premises finds that the landlord has contravened the provisions of sub-section (1) he may apply to the Court and or obtaining a direction that the landlord should restore the said supply. Sub-section (3) of the said Section enjoins upon the Court a duty to inquire as to whether the supply was cut off by the landlord and if so, it was without just and sufficient cause. If it comes to the said conclusion, then it has to fix a date before which the landlord is supposed to restore the supply. If the landlord fails to do so and if the tenant brings this facts to the notice of the Court, the Court on being satisfied, may impose a fine on the landlord which may extend to one hundred rupees. Sub-section (4) provide for stringent liability for the landlord but that provided for criminal complaint and there landlord on conviction can be sentenced to imprisonment. 6. In the instant case, the tenant had applied Under section 24(2) initially and the Court upon an inquiry was satisfied that the landlord without just and sufficient cause had cut away the supply. This finding was recorded on 13.9.1978 and the landlord was directed to restore the supply before 25.10.1978. The landlord having failed to restore the supply, once again an application was made by tenant on 13.11.1978 and before the said application could be finally decided, the landlord died. 7. The contentions raised by both Mr. Shah and Mr. This finding was recorded on 13.9.1978 and the landlord was directed to restore the supply before 25.10.1978. The landlord having failed to restore the supply, once again an application was made by tenant on 13.11.1978 and before the said application could be finally decided, the landlord died. 7. The contentions raised by both Mr. Shah and Mr. Majumudar proceed from a misconception that what is sought to be done by the tenant by bringing heirs on record is to ask the Court to impose a penal liability on the landlord. If that were so, then perhaps the contentions would have been taken inasmuch as for the act or omission of their deceased father Ranchhodbhai which may on proof entail penal consequences, the present petitioners could not have been held responsible without giving them an opportunity. But in the instant case, what the tenant has sought is not imposition of penal consequences and the learned Judge also seems to be conscious of this particular fact because he has in terms observed in his judgment that : "In my opinion any reference to Section 24(4) is rather quite misconceived and unwarranted. It is to be borne in mind that the present application is under Section 24(3) and not under Section 24(4) of Bombay Rent Act and the application expressly refers to Section 24(3) or the Act. If this is the position it is easy to realise that the relief or the remedy sought to sought to be enforced against the legal representatives of the opponents is not a criminal liability but a civil liability and as such it is not personal against the deceased opponent alone. "Further he has observed, "I may clarify here that whether legal representatives are on facts proved, liable or not to pay fine for the alleged breach of order of restoration against the deceased opponent," is altogether a diffident question and outside the scope of this application. These observation clearly indicate that bringing heirs on record was only with view to have their say regarding unlawfully withholding of electric supply. It is not that they are sought to be made liable for not having restored the electric supply as directed by the Court. These observation clearly indicate that bringing heirs on record was only with view to have their say regarding unlawfully withholding of electric supply. It is not that they are sought to be made liable for not having restored the electric supply as directed by the Court. The above observations quoted above from the order of the learned trial Judge are very clearly indicative that the contentions advanced by the present petitioners before the learned Judge as well as before this Court were proceeding from complete misconception regarding the nature of the application made by the tenant. Mr. Mohit Shah, the learned advocate for the tenant made it clear that he is not interested in getting the supply restored. With a view to find out a solution for the dispute which is now regarding between the parties for more than a decade, attempts were made but it does appears that due to recalcitrance of some of the petitioners restoration ration or supply of electricity could not be had in good time. Under the circumstances, in a revision application of the present nature where the contention advanced by the petitioners are proceeding on misconception regarding the nature of the petition. I feel that there is hardly any material to interfere with the order passed by the learned Small Cause Judge. Hence, both the revision applications stand dismissed. Rule discharged.