LEGAL REMEMBRANCER Vs. ABDUL WADUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule against an order of discharge passed by the Additional Presidency Magistrate in a case where a landlord had been prosecuted under Section 40 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act. The prosecution case, very briefly, was that certain premises were let at a monthly rental of Rs. 637-8-0 and that a sum of Rs. 5,000 was paid in cash as selami. This took place in October, 1949. The police had been informed, a trap was laid when the premium was paid. The learned Magistrate has discharged the accused on the ground that Section 40 only penalises acceptance of selami in addition to "standard rent"; as there is no proof in the case that any standard rent had been fixed for the premises, it follows that it could not be said that the selami was in addition to the standard rent. His view is that the case is covered by Sections 4 and 7 of the Act, where the reference is not to "standard "rent" but to "rent". In my opinion, the reasoning of the learned Magistrate is not sound. Seldmi is something quite different from rent. The seldmi paid, according to the prosecution case, was clearly not rent. Whatever might be the exact figure fixed by the Controller as the standard rent, it could always be proved that the seldmi paid was in addition to whatever that figure might be determined to be under Section 9 of the Act. The two things were two quite different classes and it is quite clear on the prosecution case that the seldmi was in addition to rent and therefore, necessarily in addition to standard rent, whatever that might be determined to be.

(2.) Mr. Basu, however, asks me not to interfere with the order of discharge, pointing out the apparent intention of the Act in regard to the matter of remedies of the tenant who has been made to pay seldmi or like excess demands and the punishments of landlords who receive or try to receive such excesses. Section 4 of the Act lays down the substantive proposition that no person shall--

(3.) Section 7 provides that the Controller can, in certain circumstances, direct refund of rent paid which is irrecoverable under the Act, or seldmi, etc., or advance rent, etc., paid contrary to the provisions of Section 4. Under Section 33, the Controller himself has powers to impose what are called fines on landlords for receiving excess rent or seldmi, etc., or advance rent and he is allowed to impose enhanced fines in cases of second offence. Then we come to Section 40, which provides especially for the case where the landlord has taken seldmi, etc., "in addition to the standard "rent" and says that he--