The proceedings against a landlord under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, were overturned by the Karnataka High Court after he claimed he had no idea that the premises he rented out were being used as a brothel by his tenant. The court emphasized that not only did the landlord say he did not have any knowledge of what was going on at his property, neither did the police have any knowledge of what was going on.
Allowing a petition filed by the landlord Prabhuraj, Justice M Nagaprasanna stated that section 3(2)(b) of the Act states that the owner, lessor, or landlord of any premises who knows what is going on on the premises is subject to the offenses punishable under section 3 of the Act. Following the search, a notice was issued to the petitioner on January 29, 2020, alleging the aforementioned offenses, to which the petitioner responded that he was unaware of what was going on at the premises that he had rented out, since he stayed far away. Police indicated the same when filing the charge sheet.
"Given section 3(2)(b) of the Act and the police themselves admitting that the petitioner was unaware of what was going on the premises, allowing further proceedings against the petitioner would degenerate into harassment and become an abuse of the legal process," the judge wrote in his order.
The petitioner is the owner of a home in Nagarabhavi, 6th Cross, Coconut Garden, Bengaluru. On December 11, 2019, he rented the property. On January 25, 2020, however, police searched and discovered that the tenant was operating a brothel. Later, a case was filed against the petitioner and others for violations of sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Act, as well as section 370 of the IPC. The petitioner, the property owner, was served with a notice on January 29, 2020, to which he responded on January 31, 2020.
{{/usCountry}}The petitioner is the owner of a home in Nagarabhavi, 6th Cross, Coconut Garden, Bengaluru. On December 11, 2019, he rented the property. On January 25, 2020, however, police searched and discovered that the tenant was operating a brothel. Later, a case was filed against the petitioner and others for violations of sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Act, as well as section 370 of the IPC. The petitioner, the property owner, was served with a notice on January 29, 2020, to which he responded on January 31, 2020.
{{/usCountry}}