Judgment

PALEKAR, J.:- This is an appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The appellant Mr. N. B. Mirzan, was an Advocate on the roll of the Bar Council of Maharashtra. On 27th October, 1964, respondent No. 2 who was once the client of the appellant, made several allegations of professional misconduct against the appellant which were referred by the State Bar Council to its Disciplinary Committee consisting of three Advocates, one being the Committee s Chairman and the other two its members. After a detailed inquiry into the allegations, the Disciplinary Committee came to the conclusion that professional misconduct had been established on three counts which involved moral turpitude. The Committee therefore, directed on 3rd October, 1968 that the appellant should be suspended permanently and should not be allowed to appear before any Court authority or person in India. He was also directed to surrender his Sanad forthwith. From this order, an appeal was filed to the Bar Council of India, being Appeal No. 9 of 1968. The appeal was heard by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India consisting of a Chairman and two members. On 30th November, 1969 by a detailed order, the Disciplinary Committee confirmed the findings of the State Disciplinary Committee; but as regards the punishment, it directed that the appellant be suspended from practice for a period of five years and to pay to Respondent No. 2 a sum of Rupees 850/- within two months. It was further directed that, if the amount was not paid, the punishment imposed by the State Disciplinary Committee striking out the appellant s name from the roll of Advocates would stand confirmed. It is from this order that the present appeal has been filed.

2. Respondent No. 2, Saidur Rehman, engaged the appellant as his Advocate in an obstructionist notice issued to him by the Presidency Small Cause Court, Bombay, in R. A. E. Suit No. 2491 of 1961. Respondent No. 2 had been introduced to the appellant by one Noor Mohammed who was a client of the appellant. At the time of his engagement, no fees as such were paid, but a sum of Rupees 190/- was demanded by the appellant for Court-fee stamps and that amount was paid to the appellant. Thereafter, on 26th April, 1962, the appellant demanded from respondent No. 2 s wife,Khurshid Begum, a sum of Rs. 975/- on the representation that the amount was required for deposit in the above suit by way of rent. A Receipt was issued by the appellant for this amount and it is Ext. A. On 16th August, 1962 the appellant demanded a further sum of Rs. 250/- representing that this amount was necessary for payment to some Judge or officer for getting the rent bill transferred in the name of respondent No. 2 in respect of the premises which were the subject-matter of the above suit. In respect of this payment also, the appellant issued a Receipt dated 16th August, 1962 which is Ext. B.

3. The obstructionist notice was discharged on 13th September, 1962, the order being in favour of respondent No. 2.

4. Thereafter, the landlord filed suit No. 3402 of 1963 in the City Civil Court, Bombay, against respondent No. 2 and his brother for ejectment and mesne profits. In this suit also, the appellant was engaged by respondent No. 2 as his Advocate. A written statement was filed admitting that no rent had been paid by respondent No. 2 to his landlord from May, 1961 onwards. In view of this admission, the City. Civil Court passed an order directing respondent No. 2 to 48 deposit in Court the amount due for arrears of rent from May, 1961 to September, 1963. This order was passed on 25th September, 1963. The amount was to be paid within two months from that date. Since respondent No. 2 s wife had already paid Rs. 975/- to the appellant on 26th April, 1962 and the amount was more than sufficient for making the deposit in accordance with the order of the City Civil Court, respondent No. 2 remained under the impression that the deposit would be made by the appella