VITHAL KRISHNAJI NIVENDKAR Vs. PARDUMAN RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by special leave, raises the question whether a sum of money paid ostensibly as a donation by a person to the person acting on behalf of the landlord, which was a charitable trust, in respect of the grant of a lease of the premises, came within the expression fine, premium or other like sum or deposit or any consideration other than the standard rent in sub-section (1) of s. 18 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bom. Act LVII of 1947), hereinafter called the Act.

(2.) The question arises in these circumstances. The appellant was the President, Trustee and Secretary of the Tillori Kunbi Samajonnati Sangh (hereinafter called the Sangh), Bombay, in 1958. The Sangh was a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The first respondent approached him for taking on rent one of the residential blocks of Waghe Hall at St. Xavier Road, Parel Bombay, which was owned by the aforesaid Sangh. The appellant agreed to grant the lease of the premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 85/- in favour of the first respondent on payment of Rs. 3,251/- as donation to the building fund of the said Sangh. The first respondent paid this amount in four instalments, three of which were paid prior to May 1, 1958, and the fourth, of Rs. 1,000/-, on May 1, 1958, before his actually occupying the premises. The appellant admits the receipt of this amount of Rs. 3251/-, for donation to the building fund. He contends that he was not a landlord as defined in the Act. The Presidency Magistrate, 7th Court, Dadar, held that the amount was received as a premium, as a condition precedent for letting the premises to the first respondent and that therefore the appellant committed the offence under section 18(1) of the Act.

(3.) On appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay held that aforesaid payment, even if it did not come within the expression premium of other like sum for granting the tenancy of the premises, it was received by the appellant as consideration other than the standard rent in respect of the grant of a lease of the premises and therefore the conviction was correct. It accordingly dismissed the appeal. It is against this order the appellant has filed this appeal.