Louis Kershaw, C.J. and Aikman, J.
1. This is an application for revision of an appellate order of the Sessions Judge of Allahabad confirming a conviction of the applicant under Section 5, Sub-section 2, of Act No. I of 1892 of the Local Legislature (The North-Western Provinces and Oudh Lodging House Act), and a sentence of fine imposed thereunder. The applicant relied on the contention that the houses in respect of which he had been convicted did not, for two reasons, come within the definition of lodging house in Section 1, Sub-section 3, of the Act above-mentioned. In the first place, it was argued that the houses were not ordinarily used for the purpose of affording temporary accommodation to persons, and, secondly, that, if they were so used, the applicant did not receive any compensation, direct or indirect for such use. The first contention of the applicant is negatived by the finding of fact of the Judge, who says:--'I think there is no doubt that pilgrims are lodged in these houses of the appellant at all times and seasons of the year, and that the houses are used ordinarily as lodging houses.' The Court accepts that finding of fact. We find that there was evidence amply sufficient to support it, and we are therefore not justified in interfering where the question is one of fact, and where the fact has been found in a sense hostile to the applicant by the tribunal from which he has appealed. The second point under this Sub-section 3 made by the applicant's counsel is that the applicant's houses do not come within the definition in that sub-section, inasmuch as the applicant did not receive any consideration, direct or indirect, for their user. The Magistrate has found that the persons who at various times of the year received temporary accommodation at the houses of the applicant did indirectly pay the applicant for such accommodation, Presents were received by him on the departure of the persons accommodated at his houses. We are of opinion that a portion of the value of those presents is to be ascribed to the accommodation which was given and received. The applicant derived his income from such presents. It was necessary that accommodation of some sort should be provided in order to enable him to keep his clients and so to receive in future such presents as they might give him. Under these circumstances we think that he was indirectly paid for the accommodation which he gave to those clients, and therefore that his houses come within the definition in the sub-section mentioned, and that he was rightly convicted. We therefore dismiss this application.