TOLARAM RELUMAL AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE OF BOMBAY.

The Supreme Court interpreted Section 18(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, clarifying that the receipt of money by a landlord must be in relation to an existing lease for it to be punishable under the Act. The Court held that the terms 'renewal or continuance of a lease' imply that a lease must be in existence at the time of the money's receipt, thus ruling that an executory contract does not fall under this provision. The appellants' conviction for receiving a premium in relation to a non-existent lease was overturned, leading to their acquittal.