A. ABDUL RAHIM Vs. STATE OF MADRAS BY ACCOMMODATION DEPUTY TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision is directed against a conviction under Section 16(1) read with Section 6(2)(a) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, and imposition of a fine of Rs. 200 with a provision for simple imprisonment for three weeks in case of default. The petitioner who was the landlord, by a lease deed, dated 1st January, 1958, let out to one Dr. M.P. Ganesh Rao the front side of premises No. 129 -A in Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, on a monthly rent of Rs. 45. Clauses (4) and (5) of the lease deed provided for the payment by the tenant to the petitioner of a sum of Rs. 500 as advance, the receipt of which was acknowledged by the petitioner, and for return of the advance without interest on the tenant vacating the premises in his occupation. The question is whether this provision for payment of the amount and refund of the same on the contingency contemplated is within the mischief of Section 6(2)(a) of the Act. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate thought that it was, and in that view convicted and sentenced the petitioner as aforesaid.

(2.) THERE was some argument in the light of the evidence adduced before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate as to the precise nature of the payment of Rs. 500. Clause (4) of the lease deed states that the tenant of his own accord paid the sum to the petitioner as advance but it was sought to be made out in the evidence that this amount was paid by the tenant with a view for the petitioner to provide for certain amenities asked for by the tenant. But this case of the petitioner has not been accepted by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate and I can find no reason to differ from him. The actual payment of the sum of Rs. 500 and the refund thereof at the termination of the tenancy are not disputed. Though Clause (4) of the lease deed mentions that this amount of Rs. 500 was paid as advance, it is clear from the lease deed that the so called advance did not represent additional rent or rent paid in advance. Nor does the payment appear to be of the nature of a loan because it was not repayable on demand. It is more like a deposit repayable only on the happening of a certain stipulated event.

(3.) NO direct decided case on the point has been brought to my notice. The cases, cited at the Bar relate to the English Rent Control Acts using different phraseology on particular contexts. In King v. Cadogan (Earl), L.R. (1915) 3 K.B. 485 , Warrington, L.J., while discussing the relative provisions in the English Finance Act, stated: