JUDGMENT B.D. Gupta, J. - This is an application in revision on behalf of one Bhagwat Prasad who has been convicted for an offence under Rule 1-j(c) of the Bye-laws framed by the Municipal Board of Dhampur, The sentence awarded to the applicant is a fine in a sum of Rs. 150/-. In order to appreciate the plea raised in revision, the necessary facts may be briefly set forward. 2. The Municipal Board, Dhampur leased the above mentioned plot of land to the applicant for a period of one year which was due to expire on the 31st of March, 1966. Under the terms of the lease granted to the applicant, the applicant was bound to vacate the plot on or before the 15th of April, 1966. There is no controversy that the applicant did not vacate the plot on the 15th of April, 1966 with the result that on the 16th of April, 1966 the Municipal Board, Dhampur filed a complaint against the applicant alleging contravention of Rule 1-J (c) of the Bye-laws of the Board which provide that whoever contravened the provision of the said Bye-laws shall be liable on conviction to be punished with fine which may extend to Rs. 250/-. 3. The courts below took the view that by continuing to remain in occupation of the plot of land leased out to the applicant, the applicant committed an offence punishable under Rule 1-J (c) of the Bye-laws of. the Municipal Board, Dhampur. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has raised the contention that the applicant having entered possession of the land lawfully, it cannot be said that by remaining in possession after the expiry of the terms of the lease, the applicant renders himself liable to be punished for any offence. Reference was made to the language of the rule in question. It provides that, "no person shall without the previous permission in writing of the Collector or the Chairman ...... (c)......occupy in any manner any road, patri, street, or place situate within the municipality.........." 5. It has not been alleged that the applicant did not any overt act after the expiry of the term of the lease and there is no controversy that the initial entry of the applicant on the land was lawful and, further, that his continuing to occupy the land after the 15th of April, 1966 was unlawful. It has not been alleged that the applicant did not any overt act after the expiry of the term of the lease and there is no controversy that the initial entry of the applicant on the land was lawful and, further, that his continuing to occupy the land after the 15th of April, 1966 was unlawful. That fact would not, to my mind, be sufficient to convert his unlawful occupation into an offence punishable under the rule mentioned above. This rule, in my opinion, refers to an overt act by which a person occupies municipal land without the previous permission of the Chairman or the Secretary of the Board, and not to a case in which the occupation which has become illegal by reason of expiry of the term of the lease was, at its inception, authorised by law. A penal statute has to be strictly construed and in the absence of anything in the rule to indicate that it was intended to cover cases where a person who entered legally in occupation of municipal property, continued to occupy illegally was also liable to punishment, I am unable to construe the rule as covering such cases. In my opinion, therefore, the conviction of the applicant is misconceived. 6. This revision is accordingly allowed. The conviction of the applicant is set aside and the applicant is acquitted of the charge on which was tried. The fine if already realised, stall be refunded to the applicant.