TOLARAM RELUMAL AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 158 · Decided: 13-05-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

'954 
Srimati Ashalata 
Debi and Others 
v. 
Sri Jadu Nath 
Roy and Others. 
BhagwatiJ. 
1954 
May 13 
158 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955J 
regard to the payment of the revenue and the cess as 
also the second instalment under the new decree. 
The contention which was therefore urged on behalf 
of the appellants that there was no default committed 
by the mortgagors also could not be sustained. 
The High Court of Judicature at Calcutta was there-
fore rightly seized of the appeal . and it had jurisdiction 
to 
decide whether the mortgagors had 
committed 
default in carrying out the terms of the new decree. 
The appeal being a mere rehearing the appellate Court 
was entitled to review 
the judgment of the trial Judge 
and declare th~t it was wrong . and that the decree-
holder. was 
entitled to re-restoration. The 
question 
whether he would be able to obtain possession of the 
immovable properties in fact was foreign to such an 
enquiry. 
By appropriate proceedings in another juris-
diction he may be able to do so ; but this difficulty 
could not be a deterrent to the High Court passing the 
necessary orders for re-restoration of the properties. 
The appeal therefore fails and must stand . dismissed. 
There will be no order as to costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
TOLARAM RELUMAL AND ANOTHER 
v. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY. 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., MuKHERrEA, 
VIVIAN BosE, BHAGWAn and VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR JJ."I 
"---· ,, 
Bombay Rents, ·Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act~ 
1947, (Bombay Act LVII of 1947)-Section 18(1)-Words "in res-
pect ·af"-Meaning of-Receipt of nioney 'by landlord 01· any person 
on his behalf-On executory 'co'fitract-W hether punishable 
under 
-,-
the Act. 
Section 18(1) of the Bombay Rents, .......... Control Act 1947 
provides:-
"If any landlord either himself or through any person actin& " j 
or r.urporting to act on his .behalf . ......... receives any fine, 
pre·- / 
mium Or other like sum or deposit or any cO~sideration, other tha,n 
• 
-
-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
159 
the standard rent. ....... in 
respect 
of 
the 
grant, 
renewal 
or 
continuance of a lease of 
any 
premises ...... such 
landlord or 
person shall be punished .......... " in the manner indicated by the 
section. 
Held, that the 
words "renewal or continuance 
of a 
lease" 
dearly suggest that there must be a renewal or continuance of a 
subsisting lease. 
They would not cover an ex~cutory contract 
to 
grant a lease. 
Giving the words "in respect of" 
their widest meaning, viz., 
"relating to" or "with reference to" 
it is plain that 
this relation-
ship must be predicate<! of the grant, renewal 
or continuance of a 
lease 
and unless a lease 
comes into existence· simultaneously 
or 
nearabout the time that the money is received 
it cannot be said 
that the receipt ·was "in respect of" the grant of a lease. 
The 
relationship of landlord and tenant does not . c0me into existence 
till a lease 
comes into existence, in other words, there is no rela-
tionship of landlord and tenant until there is a demise of the pro-
perty which is capable of being taken possession of. 
The section does 
not 11:\ake the intention punishable, it makes 
an act punishable which is related to the existence of a lease. 
It 
does 
not 
make 
receipt 
of 
money 
on 
an executory 
contract 
punishable. 
London· and North 
Eastern 
Railway Co. v. Berriman (1946 
A.C. 278, 295) referred to. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 18 of 1953. 
Appeal under article 134 ( 1) ( c) of the Constitution 
of India from the 
Judgment and Order dated the 18th 
February, 1953, ·of the High Court of Judicature at 
Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 1952 arising 
out of the Judgment and Order dated the 21st May, 
1952, of the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, 
19th 
Court, Bombay, in Case No. 147/P/1951. 
B. H. Lulla and 
Rajinder Narain for the appel-
lants. 
Porus A. Mehta for the respondent. 
1954. May 13. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
MEHR CHAND 
MAHAJAN C.J.-The appellants were 
charged under section 18(1) of the Bombay Rent Res-
triction Act, 
1947, for receiving from Shankar Das 
~ 1- , Gupta through Mathra Das, accused No. 3, on .23rd 
November, 1950, a sum of Rs. 2,400 as premium or 
1954 
T olaram Relumal 
and Another 
v. 
The State of 
Bombay. 
1954 
T olaram Rtlumal 
and Another 
v. 
The State Of 
Bombay. 
Mehr Chand 
Mahajan C. J. 
160 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955} 
pugree in respect of the grant of lease of Blo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.