W. H. KING versus REPUBLIC OF INDIA AND ANOTHER.

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 418 · Decided: 01-02-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA, SUDHI RANJAN DAS, N. CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR · Disposal: Set Aside
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1952 
Feb. 1. 
418 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952] 
W. H. KING 
v. 
REPUBLIC OF INDIA AND ANOTHER. 
[PATANJALI 
SASTRI c. J., 
MEHR CHAND 
MAHAJAN, 
MuKHERJEA, 
DAs and 
CHANDRASEKHARA 
ArYAR JJ.] 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Rates Control Act (LVII of 1947), 
s. 19-Tenant handing over possession to third person receiving 
"pugrec"-W hether 
constitutes 
urelinquishment" -Difference 
bet-
ween assignment and relinquishment-Construction of penal siatutes. 
Sub-section (1) of sec. 19 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodg-
ing House Rates 
Control Act, 
LVJI of 1947, provided that "it 
shall not be lawful for the tenant or any person acting or pur-
porting to act on behalf of the tenant to claim or receive any sum. 
or any consideration as a condition for the relinquishment of his 
tenancy of 
any 
premises"; 
a.nd sub-sec. 
(2) provided 
that" any 
tenant or person who in contravention of the provisions 
of sub-
sec. (1) receives any sum or consideration shall on conviction be 
punished with imprisonment and also with fine. 
A, who was a tenant of a fiat, 
handed over vacant possession. 
of the fiat to B on receiving "pugree", under a document which 
recited that A shall have no claim whatever over the flat and 
that B shall pay the rent directly to the landlord. A was con-
victed of an offence under sec. 19(2). 
Held, that there was no 
"relinquishment" of his tenancy by A, within the n1eaning of 
sec. 19(1) and the conviction could not be sustained. 
There is a clear distinction bet\veen an assignment of a tenancy 
on the one hand and a relinquishment or surrender on the other. 
.• 
·-· 
In the 
case of an assignment, the assignor c~ntinues to be liable 
.. 
to the landlord 
for the performance of 
his obligations under the 
tenancy and this liability is contractual, \vhile the assignee be-
comes liable by reason of privity of estate. 
The consent of the 
landlord to an assignment is not necessary, in the absence of a 
contract or local 
usage to the contrary. 
But in the case of rel-
inquishment it c<:1nnot be a unilateral transaction; it can only be 
in favour of the lessor by mutual agreement between them. 
Rel~ 
.. > 
inquishment of possession must be to the lessor or one who holds 
his interest; 
and 
surrender 
or relinquishment 
terminates the 
lessee's rights and lets in the lessor. 
As sec. 19 of Bombay Act LVJI of 1947 creates an offence and 
imposes 
a 
penalty of fine and imprisonment, the words ·of the 
section must be strictly construed in favour of the subject. The 
Court is not concerned so much with what might possibly have 
been intended as with what has been actually said in and by the 
language employed in the statute. 
"'" 
Judgment of the Bombay High Court reversed. 
-
'>- _ _, 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
419 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 8 of 1951. 
Appeal from an Order of the High Court of Bombay 
(Bavdekar and Chainani JJ.) 
dated 20th February, 
1950, in Criminal Appeal No. 106 of i950 arising out 
of an order dated 9th January, 1950, of the Presidency 
Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, 
in 
Case 
No. 10879/P of 1949. 
The facts 
are 
stated m 
the 
judgment. 
lswarlal C. Dalal and R. B. Dalal, for the appellant. 
C. K. Daphtary, 
Solicitor-General f<>r India (G. N. 
Joshi, with him) for the Republic of India (respond-
ent No. 1). 
~ 
Jindra Lal for the respondent No. 2. 
1952. February 1. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
CHANDRASEKHARA 
AIYAR 
J.-The 
facts 
our 
of 
which this Criminal Appeal has arisen are not long. 
The appellant, W. H. King, who is carrying on a busi-
ness in Bombay under the name and style of Associat-
ed Commercial Enterprises, was the tenant of a Bat on 
the second Boor of a building called "Ganga Vihar", 
Marine 
Drive, 
Bombay, 
which 
belongs 
to 
a lady 
named Durgeshwari Devi. The tenancy was a monthly 
one, the rent being Rs. 215. 
It is said that the appel-
lant wanted to go to the United Kingdom for treatment 
of his failing eye-sight and he gon into touch with the 
complainant Mulchand 
Kodumal 
Bhatia, who 
is the 
second respondent in this appeal, through one Sayed 
for the 
purpose of 
making 
necessary arrangements 
about the Bat occupied by him in view of his intended 
departure. The prosecution case 
is that the 
accused 
demanded a sum of Rs. 30,000 which 
was later on 
reduced to Rs. 29,500 as consideration 
for putting the 
complainant in vacant possession of 
the Bat 
and an 
additional amount
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.