M. S. PARIKH, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Appeal with Leave u/s. 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 arises from the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 15 Ahmedabad (for short the learned Magistrate) in Criminal Case No. 2319 of 1980 on 30/01/1982 ( 2 ) THE fact as per the case of the appellant may briefly be stated below: ( 3 ) THE appellant had been residing in the premises in question for a period of about 4 to 5 years at the relevant point of time i. e. somewhere in the year 1979-80 as the tenant of the respondents. He had an occasion of having some difficulty from other tenants occupying their respective premises in the property of the respondents. This happened L somewhere on or about 2 6/11/1979 resulting in filing of police cases among the tenants including the present appellant. The appellant was required to send his children at his wifes parents place and himself started residing at the house of one or the other friend. The property known as Laxmi Nivas bearing Municipal. Census No. 19-4-A-1 and Survey No. 54-55-8-B-1 originally belonged to one Mr. R. G. Bavaskar who had expired about 4 years before the date of the incident. The respondents-accused and daughters of deceased R. G. Bavaskar were landlords. However the appellant did not join the daughters of the R. G. Bavaskar as the accused persons in the complaint which he had the occasion to file. The appellant had his telephone and household articles in the tenanted premises. In order to take care of such household articles and telephone he engaged one Christain boy Josh by name. It is further the case of the appellant that about 2 1/2 years before the relevant point of time the appellant had taken a separate water connection inside the tenanted premises as a result of grant of his application with a signature and an endorsement of no objection from Mr. Bavaskar. There was no other water connection meant for the appellant. The appellant alleged that the accused persons were harassing him in order to take possession of the tenanted premises from him. Bavaskar. There was no other water connection meant for the appellant. The appellant alleged that the accused persons were harassing him in order to take possession of the tenanted premises from him. It is in this background that the appellant had alleged that on 15/12/1980 the accused persons had cut off the pipeline from which the appellant was receiving water supply in the tenanted premises and thereby they deprived the appellant of the essential service. According to the appellant in the portion of the pipeline which was cut off the accused-persons had joined another plastic pipe and thereby they started using it. Under such circumstances the appellant was required to file a complaint on 2 6/12/1980 before the learned Magistrate u/s. 24 (4) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act. ( 4 ) ALL these factual aspects of the case are to be borne in mind while coming to the conclusion as to whether the complainant had established his case as required by Section 24 (1) read with Section 24 (4) of the Act. Section 24 (1) and (4) respectively read as under24 (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. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (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. It may be noted that this is a penal provision and has to be construed strictly. In order to hold the respondents guilty it would have to be established that without just or sufficient cause they had cut off the water supply by cutting off the pipeline as alleged by the complainant. The offence as-stated under the aforesaid provision has to be established beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-persons. This is a case where the evidence falls short of such proof as can be seen from the evidence discussed above. (NVA) Appeal dismissed. .