JUOGMENT-The appellants before me are wife and husband and they were tried and convicted for an offence under section 18 (4) of the Bombay Rent Act and each of them is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300 or in default of payment of the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. They came to be prosecuted under the following circumstances: Appellant No.1 owns a building known as Deshmukh House, situate at Plot No. 167,Shri Krishna Nagar, Borivli, Bombay 66. Appellant NO.2, her husband, is managing her affairs. Both the appellants started construction of the building in the year 1968 or so. On certain representations made: by appellant No. 2, respondent No. 1 agreed to be tenant of a certain flat in the proposed building. Respondent No. 1, as demanded by the appellants, advanced a construction loan of Rs. 5,000. Various sums were paid from time to time and according to the respondent when the balance payable was only Rs. 250, an agreement in writing was executed. This was on January 1, 1969. The agreement is produced in this case at Exh. B. It contains various terms of tenancy. The tenant was to occupy one flat and pay Rs.60 pet month as rent and other water and electric charges. Half the payment of the rent was to be adjusted towards the repayment of the loan. After repayment of the loan, the tenant was to continue in occupation as a monthly tenant of the flat. The agreement is on stamped paper and it was never registered. Clause (4) of the original agreement was to the following effect: “The said loan shall carry interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum from the date of payment." This clause is scored out by drawing a line. The cancellation bears the signatures of appellant No. 1 and the tenant. It appears that disputes started between the parties after the tenant started residing in the flat. A number of notices were exchanged between them. The appellants wanted the tenant to share 50 per cent. of the expenses of registration of According to the tenant it was the responsibility of the appellants to have the document registered at their cost. The tenant was making a grievance as the provision about payment of interest was deleted from the agreement. There were some other differences between the parties. 2. of the expenses of registration of According to the tenant it was the responsibility of the appellants to have the document registered at their cost. The tenant was making a grievance as the provision about payment of interest was deleted from the agreement. There were some other differences between the parties. 2. On December 23, 1971 the tenant filed a complaint against both the accused charging them with the commission of an offence under section 18 of the Rent Act. The allegation was that the appellants had committed offences also under section 24 of the Rent Act and sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. At the trial the tenant elected to prosecute the complaint only under section 18 of the Rent Act. The charge under section 18 of the Rent Act waif read, over, and 'explained to the accused. The accused denied the charge. According to them the provision regarding payment of interest was deleted, as the rent was fixed at a lower rate. Appellant No.2, the husband, who was in-charge of the affairs of appellant No. 1, has stated that the original agreement was with the tenant and he had only a copy thereof. 4. In support of the case the complainant has examined himself and relied on the correspondence exchanged between the parties and the original agreement which is produced at Erxh. B. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the appellants committed contravention of conditions of the agreement and did not get the agreement registered. They had not agreed to pay interest on the loan at 4 per cent. per annum. According to the learned Magistrate the appellants were guilty of an offence under section 18 (4) bf the Rent Act 5. Mr. Shere, who appears for the appellants, submitted that the facts of the case will not attract the provisions of sections 18 (3) and 18 (4) of the Rent Act. The conviction will be illegal and will have to be set aside. In the alternative he argued that if there is any contravention of the conditions of the agreement mentioned in section 18 (3) of the Act, then the facts showed that the contravention was not without any reasonable excuse within the meaning of section 18 (4) of the Act. He urged that even on this ground the appellants will be entitled to an acquittal. 6. He urged that even on this ground the appellants will be entitled to an acquittal. 6. As regards the first contention, Mr. Shere says that admittedly the agreement in writing was not registered. He maintains that section 18 (1) contains a prohibition against receiving any consideration by the landlord for creation of a lease in favour of the tenant. Any such contravention will be a criminal offence under section 18 (1) of the Act. Under section 18 (2) the tenant will have the remedy for recovery of the consideration which may have been illegally accepted by the landlord. Section 18 (3) of the Act provides that nothing contained in section 18 (1) will apply to cases where the landlord has accepted a construction loan under an agreement which is in writing and which is registered. Such an agreement, inter alia, must include six conditions, which are mentioned in the sub-section. If there is no agreement in writing or if such agreement is not registered then section 18 (1) will be attracted to the facts of the case. The same will be the result if the agreement is in writing and registered and one or more of the six terms mentioned in the sub-section are not incorporated in the agreement. I find considerable substance in this contention. If this contention is accepted, then in the present case the conviction of the appellants under section 18 (4) will be illegal. As there is no agreement in existence, there is no question of contravention of' any of the conditions specified in section 18 (3) of the Act. In that event if it is found that the landlord has accepted the consideration in the form of construction loan or otherwise, before letting out the premises, then that may be an offence under section 18 (1) of the Rent Act. 7. Mt. Warke, who appears for the tenant, however, contended that on a proper construction of section 18 (3) of the Rent Act, even failure to register the document will be a contravention of the conditions contained in the subsection and the same will be punishable under section 18 (4) of the Rent Act. In support of his submission, he has strongly relied on a decision of Vimadalal J. reported in Narendra Bhogilal v. The State1. In support of his submission, he has strongly relied on a decision of Vimadalal J. reported in Narendra Bhogilal v. The State1. The following extract from the head-note will indicate the ratio of that decision : "Where the agreement under which a construction loan is taken by a landlord is not in writing or is in writing but is not registered, the landlord commits an offence under sub. section (4) of section 18 of the Act, unless he can make out any reasonable excuse for not reducing the agreement into writing or not registering the same. Even if the landlord has a reasonable excuse for the agreement not being in writing or not being registered, he would still commit an offence if he committed breach of any of the conditions that are to a found listed as (i) to (vi) in section 18 (3), unless he can prove a reasonable excuse for breach of such listed condition also." 8. As is clear from the body of the judgment, the learned Judge was of the view that considering the object of the statute it was necessary to so construe the relevant provisions as may result in affording substantial protection to the tenant, who is to be protected against exploitation by an unscrupulous landlord. It is for this reason that the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the term "conditions" in section 18 (4) connote not only those conditions, which are listed as (i) to (vi), but also the provisions in the substantive part of sub-section (3) which require the agreement to be in writing and registered. He held that the conditions listed as (i) to (vi) in sub-section (3) apply not only if the agreement is in writing and registered, but also if the agreement is in writing but not registered or even if the agreement in oral. I find considerable difficulty in accepting this construction of the relevant provisions of section 18 (3) and section 18 (4) of the Rent Act. 9. At this stage it will be necessary to have before us a brief analysis of section 18 of the Rent Act. Under section 18 (1) of the Act the landlord is guilty of an offence and is liable to be punished if he accepts any consideration by whatever name called while entering into a transaction of grant, renewal or continuance of a lease of any premises. Under section 18 (1) of the Act the landlord is guilty of an offence and is liable to be punished if he accepts any consideration by whatever name called while entering into a transaction of grant, renewal or continuance of a lease of any premises. He is guilty even if he accepts such consideration for giving his consent to any such transaction. He may in such case be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and shall also be punished with fine which shall not be less than the amount of the consideration received by him. If the offence is committed by the landlord in respect of certain premises of his ownership then the premises shall be liable to confiscation. 10. Under section 18 (2) the tenant, who had paid such consideration has a right to claim adjustment or refund of the same within a period of six months from the date of payment, without prejudice to any other remedy for recovery which may be available to him. 11. Section 18 (3) enacts that toe prohibition mentioned above will not apply to any loan agreement effected before the first day of September, 1940 or to any such agreement which provides for an advance by a person to landlord by way of loan for the purpose of financing the erection of the whole of part of the residential section of a building on the land held by him as an owner, a lessee or in any other capacity, entitling him to build on such land. But such an agreement shall be in writing and shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Registration Act, 1908, be registered. As the agreement must be in writing and the provision is mandatory, there is no doubt that oral agreement ·is excluded. As the agreement is to be registered and the provision is mandatory, there is no doubt that an unregistered agreement in writing is excluded. 12. Even if the agreement is in writing and registered, then it is not valid for the purpose of sub-section (3) unless it includes, inter alia, the conditions listed as (i) to (vi). If none of these conditions are included in the agreement or, some of these conditions are omitted, then the 88reement will not be valid for the purpose of this sub-section. If none of these conditions are included in the agreement or, some of these conditions are omitted, then the 88reement will not be valid for the purpose of this sub-section. If there is no valid agreement for one reason or the other as provided in the sub· section then section 18 (1) of the Rent Act will be attracted, as soon as it is proved that the landlord or any other person has accepted illegal consideration within the meaning of section 18(1) of the Act. Section 18 (4) provides that if any landlord who has received a loan under an agreement in accordance with the provisions of subsection(3), contravenes, without any reasonable excuse, any of the conditions specified in the said sub-section, then such landlord shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine, or with both. The penalty provided in section 18 (4) is far less severe than the penalty under section 18 (1) of the Act. Breach of conditions of an agreement, which is otherwise valid under section 18 (3) of the Act is not treated as seriously as the commission of an offence under section 18 (1) of the Act. 13. The above analysis of section 18 of the Act underlines the object of the Legislature which provides for proper protection to tenants against exploitation by unscrupulous landlords or builders of premises. 14. In my opinion the agreement contemplated by section 18 (8) of the Act must be in writing and registered and must include all the six conditions listed therein. It is only in such case that the offence for contravention of the conditions can be committed within the meaning, of section 18 (4) of the Act. But for the purpose of this case I have decided to follow the ratio of the abovementioned reported decision. 15. The appellants are entitled to an acquittal as there was a reasonable excuse for not registering the agreement and for not including the term of interest in the agreement. 16. It appears that before the initiation of the proceedings, there was an exchange of correspondence between the appellants and the tenant. Some of the letters are placed on the record of this case. On March 21, 1970 the appellant's advocate addressed a letter to the tenant. 16. It appears that before the initiation of the proceedings, there was an exchange of correspondence between the appellants and the tenant. Some of the letters are placed on the record of this case. On March 21, 1970 the appellant's advocate addressed a letter to the tenant. In that letter it is mentioned that the tenant was required to execute a registered document on constructional loan a150 per cent. cost from his side. On April 13, 1970 the tenant's advocate sent a reply. In that reply it is mentioned that the landlords had failed to get the agreement registered to avoid his liability to pay interest. On April 6, 1971 the tenant's advocate addressed a letter to the landlords. In this letter a grievance was made that the landlords was not getting the loan agreement registered. Similarly he had failed to pay the interest on the loan. There is another letter dated May 22, 1971 addressed to the tenants advocate by the landlords' advocate. In this letter there is reference to tenant’s rejoinder dated May J2, 1971. The tenant's advocate was asked to send the draft of the agreement for approval. The landlord’s advocate offered to make arrangement for registration and payment of 50 per cent. of the costs. This is all the correspondence which is produced in this case. The tenant in his evidence says that he had asked the accused to resister the document. In the cross examination he denied the suggestion that he was not ready to get the document registered at any time. He says that he was not bound to pay the 50 per cent. costs for registration of the document. He denied the suggestion that the accused were ready to register the document. Accused No.1 in her statement under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code said that the complainant had never asked her to get the document registered She admitted that her husband i.e. appellant No.2, attends to all the affairs. Accused No.2 denied that he ever refused to get the agreement exh. B registered. He stated that the original agreement was with the complainant and he had only a copy with him. From these facts, it is clear that there was some dispute between the parties about the costs of registration. The landlords wanted the tenant to bear 50 per cent. of the costs. B registered. He stated that the original agreement was with the complainant and he had only a copy with him. From these facts, it is clear that there was some dispute between the parties about the costs of registration. The landlords wanted the tenant to bear 50 per cent. of the costs. This may be one of the reasons why the said document was never registered. Apart from the circumstance, the statement of accused No.2 that the original agreement was throughout with the tenant assumes some importance. The agreement produced at exh. B appears to be the original document. The tenant in' the evidence has not said anything which would suggest that there we are more than one original agreement executed by the parties. As the agreement produced is the original document and the accused has stated that he had only a copy thereof, then in the circumstances, it was open to the tenant to get the' document registered under section 32 (a) of the Registration Act, 1908. That clause provides that the document may be presented at the proper registration office by some person executing or claiming under the same. The tenant was in the present case a party to the document. When he had the custody of the original document it was futile for him to suggest that the landlord should have taken active steps for getting it registered. At any rate, the landlord has shown his willingness to get it registered provided the tenant bore half the costs of registration. In my opinion, there was a reasonable excuse which would exonerate the landlord from the penal liability under section 18 (4) of the Rent Act. 17. Then Mr. Warke strenuously argued that at any rate the landlord had failed to pay interest at 4 per cent. per annum to the tenant as provided in the agreement. No doubt there are rival versions as to why clause (4) of the agreement providing for 4 per cent. interest was scored out or cancelled by both the parties. The defence suggestion appears to be that the provision for interest was deleted as the amount of rent payable by the tenant was proportionately reduced. The tenant has not offered any explanation as to why clause (4) of the agreement came to be cancelled or deleted. The cancellation or deletion was initialled by both the parties. The defence suggestion appears to be that the provision for interest was deleted as the amount of rent payable by the tenant was proportionately reduced. The tenant has not offered any explanation as to why clause (4) of the agreement came to be cancelled or deleted. The cancellation or deletion was initialled by both the parties. There is no doubt that it was done with consent of both the parties. The cancellation or deletion duly signed by the parties will certainly afford a reasonable excuse to the landlords for not complying with the condition for payment of interest. 18. In the result the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate is set aside. The appeal is allowed. Fine, if paid, to be refunded to the appellants. Conviction and sentence set aside.