JUDGMENT (ORAL) Ashok Agarwal, J. - By judgment and order passed on the 30th of April, 1985 by the learned Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Vasai, in Criminal Case No. 1579 of 1983, the first respondent herein is acquitted of an offence punishable under Section 24 of the Bombay Rent Act. The said acquittal is challenged by the appellant-original complainant in the present appeal. 2. The complainant is a tenant of Room No. 2, situate on the ground floor of Matruchhaya Building, Ghate Ali, Vasai and the accused is his landlord who is occupying premises on the firs floor of the very building. It is the case of the prosecution that on the 20th of September, 1983 accused has disconnected the water supply of the complainant. The complainant has, therefore, filed a private complaint in Court which has led to the instant prosecution. 3. At the trial, the complainant examined himself and his witness Balkrishna. In rebuttal accused has examined defence witness Thakur who is another tenant of the very building. In substance the defence of the accused is that under an, agreement (Exhibit 13) signed between the complainant and the accused, accused has agreed to supply pipeline water free of cost so long as the pump belonging to the accused is working and remains in working condition. The agreement further recites that the said facility is not provided as an essential service and the complainant will not have a right to it as such. The defence has submitted that the water pump in question went out of order in September, 1983. The complainant refused to contribute towards its repairs. Hence, the accused has not restored the pipeline connection which goes through the water pump. 4. The accused has examined D.W. Thakur who is also a tenant of the accused. He has stated that he agreed to contribute the repair charges of the electric motor. He has produced an agreement (Exhibit 14) which is executed by him in favour of the accused. Under the said agreement the said Shri Thakur has agreed to contribute towards the repair charges of the pump. 5. On a perusal of the above evidence versus learned Magistrate has been pleased to record an order of acquittal in favour of the accused. In my view, the order of acquittal is justified on the aforesaid material on record. Under the said agreement the said Shri Thakur has agreed to contribute towards the repair charges of the pump. 5. On a perusal of the above evidence versus learned Magistrate has been pleased to record an order of acquittal in favour of the accused. In my view, the order of acquittal is justified on the aforesaid material on record. It is not the case of the complainant that the accused has disconnected the water supply altogether. What appears to have happened is that the water pump through which the water was being supplied to the complainant got out of order. It was out of order for 22 days in the years 1983. Other tenant such as D.W. Thukur has contributed towards its rapier. The complainant appears to have refuse to contribute. Under the agreement (Exhibit 13) which is executed the latter has agreed to supply water through the water pipeline free of cost as long as the water pump is in order. The agreement is dinged by the complainant after reading the material averments contained in the agreement. In view of the agreement the liability of the accused to provide water will continue only so long as the pump is in working condition. The moment it stops working the right to receive water free of cost will come to an end. If, thereafter the complainant desires to avail of the said facility that cannot be free of cost, he will have to contribute towards the cost of the repairs of the pump and the cost of keeping the same in working condition. It is not disputed that at a distance of about 4 to 5 ft. from the premises in occupation of the complainant there is a bore-well and the complainant is not prevented from availing water from that well. In the circumstances, I fine that the impugned order of acquittal is just and fair and no interference is called for in the present appeal. 6. In the result, the appeal fails. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 30th of April, 1985 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasai in Criminal Case No. 1579 of 1983 is of firmed and the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.