LexVITHAL KRISHNA JI NIVENDKAR versus PARDUMAN RAM SINGH & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COUR'I' REPORTS
bond afresh when Bekaru furnished fresh surety in
place of Sa.fir Hussain's surety bond. We therefore
hold that the appellant's bond has been rightly
forfeited ou the non-appearance of Ram Narain in
Court. W c therefore dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismisse.d·.
VITHAL KRISHNAJI NIVENDKAH
v.
PARDUMAN RAM SINGH & ANOTHER
(J. L. KAPu.& and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.)
Rent Oontrot-Donation received by a person for charitable
trU8~Wlien an offence-Bombay Rents, Hotel
and Lo<Iging
House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bom. 57 of 1947) s. 18 (1).
.
.
The appellant was the President, Truste(' and Secretary
of a Sangh, which was a public trust registered under the
Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The appel!ant agreed to
grant the lease of a residential block, which was owned by the
Sangh, at a monthly rent of Rs. 85.00 in favour of the first
respondent on payment of Rs. 3,251 /- as donation to the builci-
i~ fund ~f the said Sangh, which was paid before the first
respondent actually occupied the premises.
The appellant
was convicted under s. 18 (1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and
Lodging House Rates 1Control Act, 1947, by the Presidency
Magistrate who held that the amount was received as premium,
as a condition precedent for letting the premises. On appeal
the High Court held that the aforesaid payment even if it did
not come within the expression "premium or 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 dismissed
the appeal. The appellant came up by special leave in appeal
to the Supreme Court.
The question is 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 cha1itable trust, in respect of the grant
a lease of the premises, came within the expression "fine,
premium or other Jike 'sum or deposit or any consideration
other than the standard rent" in sub·s. (1) of • 18 of the Act.
1962
B 1koru Singh
v.
Sta~o/U.P·
Raghubar D~Yal J.
1962
March2'1,
1962
Vithal Krishn•Ji
Niue11dleor
••
Porduman
Ram Singh
64
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (1963]
Held that where the donation has been received in
respect of ihe granting of the lease and not as a free donation
for the advancement of the purposes of the Sangh it will come
within the e,xpression "premium" or "consideration'' ins. 18 .
The consideration can be pecuniary or non .. pecuniary.
The mere use of the v.ord "donation" dose not take
away the effect of the other expressions used which clearly
support that the payment was made for the purpose of getting
the tenaney of the premises.
The appellant was a trustee of the Sangh. He was
receiving rent on account and on behalf of the Sangh aud
clearly. therefore he comes within the expression "landlord"
as defined in the Act. The fact that he had acted on behalf
of the trust and not for any personal reasons docs not affect
the question or the appellant's conduct coming within the
provision of s. W (I) and can affect only the quantum of
sentence.
Karunsey Kanji v. V elji Virji, ( 1954) 56 Born. L. R. 619.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 52 of 1960.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and order dated September 9, 1959, of the Bombay
High Court in Criminal Appeal No 916, of 1959.
R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.
H. R. Khanna and R, H. Dhebar, for the respon-
dent No. 2.
1962. March 27. The Judgment of the Court
wa.8 delivered by
RAGHUBAR
DAYAL, J.-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 tho
grant of a lcaso of the premises, oame within the
expression 'fine, premium or other like sum or
deposit or any consideration other than the stan-
dard rent' in sub-s. (1) of s. 18 of the Bombay
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
65
Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act,
1947 (Bom. Act LVII of 1947), hereinafter called
the Act.
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 hExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.