S. M. SONI, J. ( 1 ) ORIGINAL complainant has challenged the order of acquittal dated 22-8-1980 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Wadhvan in Criminal Case of 1980. Complainant had filed a complaint under Section 21 (2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (Rent Act for short ). Complainant admittedly is a tenant of respondent No. 1 and had served a notice under Section 21 (1) of the Rent Act calling for certain particulars. As the said notice was not replied under Section 21 (2) of the Rent Act a complaint was filed. The learned Magistrate on construing the notice to be not in compliance of the requirement of Section 21 (1) of the Rent Act has recorded the acquittal of the landlady who is respondent No. 1 herein. This order of acquittal is under challenge in this appeal. ( 2 ) SHORT question that arise in this appeal is whether the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate on reading of Ex. 41 the notice is properly recorded or not. According to the learned Magistrate in view of the provisions of Section 21 (1) of the Rent Act what is required to be called upon by the tenant is the particulars of the amount of standard rent of the premises or part thereof and not any other particulars of the rent. Complainant by his notice Ex. 41 has simply called upon for the particulars of rent and not the particulars of standard rent and as the said notice was not in compliance with the requirement of Section 21 (1) of the Rent Act there is nothing wrong if the same is not replied. In my opinion learned Magistrate has been too technical in construing the notice Ex. 41 and has thereby committed an error. Section 21 (2) of the Rent Act reads as under:21 Every landlord shall upon a notice served upon him by the tenant by post or in any other manner furnish to such tenant within one month of the receipt such notice a statement giving full particulars of the amount of standard rent of the premises or part thereof let to such tenant and of the permitted increases. ( 3 ) SO what is required to be called for by the tenant is the particulars of the previous tenants and the rents paid by them and what is required to be furnished by the landlord is the particulars of the amount of standard rent of the premises or part thereof. Therefore in my opinion there is nothing wrong if the tenant has called for the particulars as to tenant and rent paid by such tenant. Tenant is not required to call for standard rent but it is the landlord who has to supply particulars as to standard rent. Calling upon the landlord to furnish the particulars as to previous tenants and rents paid by them in my opinion is a compliance of the requirements of Section 21 (1) of the Rent Act. Thus the conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate is erroneous and liable to be set aside. However in the instant case I do not propose to interfere with the order of acquittal on a different ground. ( 4 ) THE notice to supply such particulars is served by the tenant on all the heirs of one Dahyabhai who was the landlord. On demise of said Dahyabhai all the heirs have become landlord and on their behalf one Nandubehn respondent No. 1 herein appears to have been collecting the rent. If according to the tenant accused-Nandubehn Dahyabhai was the only landlord and liable to comply with the requirement as made in notice there was no reason to serve the notice on all the heirs. This suggests that tenant known or is under impression that the said particulars may be with either or anyone or all of them may supply the same. In absence of any averment that others who are served with notice have not supplied the particulars it cannot be said that such particulars are not supplied. When a notice is given to all the landlords in absence of proof of the fact that other landlords have also not complied with the notice it cannot be said that the requirement of Section 21 (1) of the Rent Act is not complied with. It was the duty of the complainant to establish that not only the respondent No. 1 has not replied the notice but all the landlords whom he has served the notice have also not replied the same. It was the duty of the complainant to establish that not only the respondent No. 1 has not replied the notice but all the landlords whom he has served the notice have also not replied the same. Therefore in absence of the proof of the fact that other landlords have also not replied the notice it cannot be said that respondent No. 1 has committed breach of Section 21 (1) of the Rent Act and thereby an offence is committed under Section 21 of the Rent Act. In view of this fact I do not propose to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate. Hence the appeal is dismissed. .