1. The applicant Shitvdassingh of Nagpur was convicted and sentenced to undergo sis months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 under Section 8, Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946, for contravention of Clause 8, Central Provinces and Berar Collection of Information and Letting of Houses Order, 1946, by the Pirat Class Magistrate, Nagpur, In appeal, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, maintained the conviction but altered the sentence to the imprisonment already undergone, viz., 1 day, and fine of Rs, 600. The applicant has now come up in revision to this Court.
2. On 2lst June 1947, E. N. Goutam (P. w. 3) Bent Control Inspector, saw that 2 blocks of the applicant's house were occupied by P. J. Trivedi (P. W. 1) and Kakubhai (P. W. 2) and learned from them that they had been occupied since April 1947 on a monthly rental of Rs. 25. At the time of the Inspector's visit another block of the house was under construction and when he went there on 10th July 1947, he found that it was occupied by D, S. Tambe who informed him that its monthly rental was Rs. 25, The applicant had not, however, given intimation of the letting of the block to the authority concerned and he was in due course prosecuted.
3. In examination he admitted that he had, in April 1947, let out the blocks to P,. J. Trivedi, and Kakubhai, but claimed that he bad failed to furnish the required information because of the fact that he had fallen ill. In response to the charge his plea was that he had committed the offence.
4. The contention that the Order was ultra vires of the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946 was without force-. The Order was made under Section 2 of that Act; and S, 2 empowered the Provincial Government to provide by general or special order for regulating the letting and subletting of any accommodation or class of accommodation whether residential or non-residential, whether furnished or unfurnished and. whether with or without board The section also in particular empowered the Provincial Government to provide by general or special order for collecting any information or statistics with a view to regulating any of the matters shown in cls. (a), (h) and (c) of the section. The order was, as stat. ed, one which was made under that section and it inter alia required the landlord of a house to inform the Deputy Commissioner of the district or such other person as may be specified by him that a house is vacant, within three days of the date of the order, or within three daya from the date on which the landlord becomes finally aware that the house will become vacant, or available for the other occupation on or about a specified date. The landlord was also inhibited from letting the house except in accordance with Clause of the Order. All of this was manifestly intra vires of the Act.
5. The suggestion that the Order referred to old houses and not to new buildings cannot be entertained, as the word ' house ' is defined in Clause 2 (a) of the Order as a building or part of a building, and it follows that the words 'every landlord of a house' in Clause 3 (l) mean every landlord of a building or part of a building. Clearly enough, these words do not merely refer to an old building or part of an old building: alone, but to a building or part of a building, whether new or old.
6. The conviction was, therefore, in order and it is maintained, The claim that the appellate Court had enhanced the sentence is not tenable. In fact the original sentence was 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100, or in default of payment a farther term of 6 months rigorous imprisonment; while the appellate Court reduced the substantive sentence to the imprisonment already undergone, viz., l day, and raised the fine awarded from Rs. 100 to-Rs, 600, or in default of payment of the fine a further term of six months rigorous imprisonment. In Muhammad Hussain v. The Crown, 12 Lah. 449 : (A.I.R. 1931 Lah. 159:32 Cr. L. J. 1217 the petitioner was sentenced by a Magistrate to one year's rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 50 a fine, or six months further rigorous imprisonment in default; and on appeal the Sessions Judge altered the sentence to one of six months rigorous imprisonment and Rs, 500 fine, or six months further rigorous imprisonment in default. In revision, Coldstream J. held that the alteration was not an enhancement, because when the aggregate period of imprisonment which the accused may have to undergo is to any extent less than the period of original sentence, the fact that a fine is imposed by the appellate Court would not in law be an enhancement of the sentence, In Bhakthavat-salu Naidu v. Emperor, 30 Mad. 103 : 5 Cr.L.J. 36 a similar view had been taken by a Full Bench ; and in Queen-Empress .v. Chagan Jagannath, 23 Bom. 439, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that where the appellate Court had altered a sentence of nin months rigorous imprisonment to a sentence c six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine i Rs. 1000 and in default of payment this months rigorous imprisonment, there had for no enhancement of sentence as the sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment in defaults of payment did not make the whole sentence of imprisonment longer than it was before. am in respectful agreement with these authorities and would point out that in the case before me the aggregate period of imprisonment which be applicant might have to undergo is appreciably less than the period of the original sentence.
7. It seems to me, however, that the fine awarded, viz., Rs. 600, in appeal was somewhat excessive, in view of the fact that the applicant was, it appears, in hospital when the buildings were let to the tenants in question. He is also, I understand, a man who is by no means affluent, for, although he had built the blocks in question, he had borrowed the money therefore from a housing society. la all the circumstances of the case, a fine of us. 200 will suffice and I order accordingly.. In default of payment of the fine, he shall undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment.
8. Subject to this modification, the application is dismissed.