TOLARAM RELUMAL Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant were charged under section (1) of the Bombay Rent Restriction Act, 1947, for receiving from Shankar Das Gupta through Mathra Das, accused No. 3, on 23rd November 1850 a sum of Rs. 2,400/- as premium or pugree is respect of the grant of lease of Block No. 15 in a building under construction. The Magistrate found the appellants guilty of the charge and sentenced each of them to two months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,200/-. Mathra Das was convicted and sentenced to one day's S. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-. The fourth accused Roshanlal Kanjilal was acquitted. Mathra Das preferred no appeal against his conviction and sentence. The appellants preferred an appeal to the High Court against their conviction. This was heard by Gajendragadkar and Chainani, JJ., on the 8th of October 1952. It was contended, 'inter alia', that even if it were held that the appellants had accepted the sum of Rs. 2,400/- they could not be said to have committed an offence under section 18(1) of the Act inasmuch as the amount could not in law be held to be premium in respect of the grant of a lease. On this point the learned Judges said as follows:

(2.) A contrary view had been expressed in-'Mahadeo Shridhar vs. The State', Criminal Revn. Appln. No. 1178 of 1949 D/- 25-1-1950 (Bom) (A) by another Bench of the High Court on the construction of section 18(1). The matter was therefore referred to the Full Bench. The question framed for the consideration of the Full Bench was in these terms:

(3.) The Full Bench answered the question referred in the affirmative. It held that the oral agreement did not constitute a lease but it amounted to an agreement to grant a lease in future, and that the receipt of consideration for an executory agreement was within the mischief of section 18(1) of the Act. The Full Bench expressed its opinion in these terms: