VERY IMPORTANT POINT
A person answering the description of a "paying guest" in accordance with Section 5(6A) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 is to be treated as such without requiring fulfilment of any other condition required or its position under English Law.

Headnote:(i) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947-Sections 5(4A), (6A) and (8) r/w 15A-Definitions of Licencee, Paying guest, premises and licensee when deemed tenant-Conjoint meaning.
       Held : A perusal of the definitions of the terms indicated above shows that licensee is one who is in occupation of the premises or a part thereof under any subsisting agreement or licence but this definition specifically excludes "paying guest" who but for this exclusion otherwise would also have been covered by the said definition. The "paying guest" in turn is defined as means a person : (1) who is not a member of the family; (2) is a given a part of the premises; (3) in which the licensor resides. A premises also means a part of a building given separately. As provided under Section 15-A a person who may be in occupation of any premises on February 1, 1973 which is not less than a room, as a licensee, shall be deemed to have become a tenant of that premises. (Para 6)
       (ii) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House and Rates Control Act, 1947-Section 15A-Licencee when deemed tenant-Appellant seeking declaration of deemed tenant under Section 5(6A) being a licencee on 1.2.1973 -Respondent alleging him to be a "paying guest" and not a "licencee" on 1.2.73-Trial Court and appellate Court decreed the suit holding appellant to be license relying on English Law-High Court holding him to be "paying guest" reversing the decree relying on Section 5(6A) definition-One terrace flat was divided in two parts, one was given to Appellant and other retained by respondent-Whether appellant is a "licensee" or "paying guest" (the later)-Result-He cannot be given status of deemed tenant under Section 5(6A)-High Court affirmed-Appeal dismissed.

       Held : The appellant has acquired the status of a deemed tenant under Section 15-A or not will be dependent upon the fact as to whether he is to be treated as a licensee or a paying guest . (Para 6)
       From the above findings and observations it is clear that basically it is one terrace flat and one premises with only one entrance, a part of which has been given to the appellant by the licensor who occupies the remaining part of the whole terrace flat. The finding to the effect that the part given to the appellant is in his exclusive use and separate would be of no consequence so long it is a part of the whole premises. It is not necessary to go into those details which have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent to show that certain parts of premises have been in joint use since in our view that will not be a very relevant consideration. The joint use may or may not be there. It is sufficient if the premises given, is a part of the whole premises remaining of which is in occupation of the landlord. We feel that in view of the definition of the word paying guest as defined under the Act it would be more appropriate to examine as to whether the whole premises can be used as one, including, which is given to the person for occupation along with the remaining part in occupation of the landlord or not. The fact that a part of the premises is used exclusively by another would not be relevant. On the other hand what would be relevant would be if the premises could be used as one after part of it given to another person is included by the landlord as one unit for his own use. In the present case the whole premises has one door to enter into it. The finding of the trial court and the appellate court is also to the effect that the two apartments or premises are part and parcel of the one and the same terrace flat. It appears that the Legislature only intended that in cases where landlord residing in a premises, parts with possession of a part of it, it would always be open to him to regain the possession of the whole as and when the licensor may so deem necessary. The question of acquiring common lease right by a person not a member of the family may not arise. This is a plain and simple meaning flowing from the definition of the word paying guest under the Act. Introducing any other element or ingredient to give meaning to the word paying guest as may be prevalent under any other law or under English law will be doing violence to the definition of the word paying guest as defined under the Act. (Paras 9, 10 and 11)
       Generally, ordinary meaning is to be assigned to any word or phrase used or defined in a statute. Therefore, unless there is any vagueness or ambiguity, no occasion will arise to interpret the term in a manner which may add something to the meaning of the word which ordinarily does not so mean by the definition itself, more particularly, where it is a restrictive definition. Unless there are compelling reasons to do so, meaning of a restrictive and exhaustive definition would not be expanded or made extensive to embrace things which are strictly not within the meaning of the word as defined. No such compelling reason has been indicated to us by reason of which some more ingredients may be read in the term "paying guest", other than which simply flow from the definition as provided. In the case in hand the definition of the word paying guest begins with "it means". It is to be read and understood in the manner defined. There would be no justification to expand or to further restrict it by including or super-imposing some ingredients or elements which otherwise do not admit of such inclusion and to give a different colour and meaning to the defined word. A person answering the description of paying guest in accordance with Section 5(6A) of the Act is to be treated as such without requiring fulfillment of any other condition. (Para 15)
       Held consequently : We, therefore, find no infirmity in the orders passed by the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed devoid of any force. However, considering the fact that the appellant is in occupation of premises since a long time we allow him six months time to handover vacant possession of the premises to the respondents on furnishing usual undertaking to that effect in this Court within a period of four weeks from today. Costs easy. (Paras 17 and 18)

JUDGMENT

Brijesh Kumar, J.-An advertisement was published in the Times of India dated 5.10.1969; it read as follows:

"Accommodation available for two rooms self-contained apartment with sea-view, telephone optional, ideal for executives, couples, reasonable terms".

2. The appellant before us, namely, Feroze N. Dotivala approached the respondents namely, Wadhwanis in response to the above noted advertisement and he was given the accommodation on payment of certain amount as compensation for the same. The moot question that falls for consideration in this appeal is about the nature of occupation of the premises as to whether the appellant is a licensee or a paying guest in the light of the relevant provisions under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short the Act ).

3. According to the appellant, in the year 1975 after the death of the mother of the respondent No.1, he wanted the appellant to give in writing that he was occupying the premises as a paying guest. The appellant did not accede to the request made. This gave rise for the appellant to file a suit for declaration, namely, Suit No.2365 of 1975 in the Small Causes Court, Bombay for a decree in his favour that he be declared as a deemed tenant of the accommodation and an injunction was also prayed against the defendant respondents to the effect that they would not disturb his possession over the premises in question. The suit was decreed. The appeal filed before the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court was dismissed. A writ petition, however, preferred by the respondent has been allowed by the High Court holding that the appellant before us is a paying guest . Hence, this appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court.

4. The trial court while decreeing the suit recorded a finding that the plaintiff, namely, the appellant before us, with his family, is separately residing in the apartment which is self-contained whereas the defendants are residing in the other portion of the terrace flat. While dealing with the facts of the case it was also held by the trial court that there was nothing to indicate that the defendants retained control or dominance over the premises given to the plaintiff nor it would be conceivable that defendants would agree to suffer unity of residence with the plaintiff. The language used in the advertisement has also been taken into consideration to rule out the plea of the respondent that the appellant was a paying guest. The trial court, however, denied the relief sought for use of the terrace, which also he claimed to be in his tenancy, adjacent to his premises in corner of which one Shri Ajhwani lived in a room. The case of the defendant regarding common use of certain parts of the accommodation was not accepted. The appellate court while dismissing the appeal made reference to the English Law on the subject and on the basis of the same observed that the licensor must retain general control over the premises given to a person as a paying guest. He should also be a dominant occupier with the paying guest in subordinate occupation of the premises. The Appellate court has also observed that the draftsmen of the definition in the Bombay Rent Act appeared to have followed the English legal position and then it observes: "Apart from all that the term "part of the premises in which the licensor resides" used in the definition would mean either that the licensor is in joint occupation of the premises along with the paying guest or that his residence in the premises is so close to the residence of the paying guest that a stranger may feel their residence as joint". The requirement of unity of residence for a paying guest as held by the trial court, has also been approved by the appellate court. It was found that the appellant was in exclusive possession and use of the premises, hence he was not a paying guest. The High Court, however, has taken a different view on the basis of a division bench decisio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 1190

VERY IMPORTANT POINTA person answering the description of a "paying guest" in accordance with Section 5(6A) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 is to be treated as such without requiring fulfilment of any other condition required or its position under English Law.

Cases Referred (3)

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
A person answering the description of a "paying guest" in accordance with Section 5(6A) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 is to be treated as such without requiring fulfilment of any other condition required or its position under English Law.