Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1961 Supreme(SC) 330

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
Mrs. Dossibai N. B. Jeejeebhoy (In all the appeals), Appellants
Versus
1. Khemchand Gorumal (In C. A. No. 503 of 58); 2. Parmanand Dipchand Hinduja (In C. A. No. 504 of 58); 3. Balchand Menghraj and another (In C. A. No. 505 of 58), and 4. Parmanand Sugomal Mehra (In C. A. No. 506 of 58), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 503 to 506 of 1958, D/- 29-9-1961.
Advocates appeared
M./s. J. C. Bhatt and R. P. Bhatt, Advocates and M/s. R. A. Gagrat and G. Gopalakrishnan, Advocates of M/s. Gagrat and Co., for Appellant (in all appeals): Mr. N. C. Chatterjee. Senior Advocate (M/s. Madhowdas C. Bhagat and Radhey Lal Agarwal, Advocates, with him), for Respondents (In C. A,. No. 503/58), M/s. Madhowdas C. Bhagat and Radhey Lal Agarwal Advocates, for Respondents (In C. As. Nos. 504 to 506/58).

Advocates:
G.GOPALAKRISHNAN, J.C.BHATT, M.C.BHAGAT, N.C.CHATTERJI, R.A.GAGRAT, R.P.BHATT, RADHEY LAL AGRAWAL

Open land leased for the purpose of constructing buildings for residence can be considered as "letting for residence" within the meaning of Section 6 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Act LVII of 1947).

Headnote:
RENT ACT - PREMISES LET FOR RESIDENCE - OPEN LAND LEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS FOR RESIDENCE - WHETHER LETTING FOR RESIDENCE - BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT, 1947 (BOMBAY ACT LVII OF 1947), S. 6.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant brought four suits in the City Civil Court, Bombay, for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of the premises mentioned in the plaint of these several suits. The defendant in each case pleaded that the Rent Act applied and so the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suits. The first issue framed in each of these suits therefore was whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that Part II of the Rent Act applied to the premises in each of these suits and consequently only the special courts specified in Section 23 of the Rent Act had jurisdiction to entertain the suits and the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether open land leased for the purpose of constructing buildings for residence can be considered as "letting for residence" within the meaning of Section 6 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Act LVII of 1947).
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the words "let for residence" in Section 6 of the Rent Act are wide enough to include a letting for the achievement of these purposes with construction of buildings as also without construction of buildings. The Court further held that the bar of Section 15 of the Rent Act will operate only in the way of letting out the land of which lease has been taken, but will not stand in the way of letting the building constructed on the land.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed with costs.

Judgement

DAS GUPTA, J. : When a lessee takes lease of open land for the purpose of constructing on it buildings intended to be used for residence or for business is this "letting for residence", or "letting for business"? That is the short question which arises for decision in these four appeals.

2. The appellant brought these four suits in the City Civil Court. Bombay, for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of the premises mentioned in the plaint of these several suits. It is clear under the law that the City Civil Court, Bombay, would have no jurisdiction to try these suits if the provisions of Part II of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Act No LVII of 1947), which later in this judgment we shall refer to as the "Rent Act", applied to the premises in suits. For this reason the plaintiff stated in the plaint itself that this Rent Act did not apply to the demised premises. The defendant in each case pleaded on the contrary that the Rent Act applied and so the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suits. The first issue framed in each of these suits therefore was whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned Judge held that Part II of the Rent Act applied to the premises in each of these suits and consequently only the special courts specified in Section 23 of the Rent Act had jurisdiction to entertain the suits and the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction. Accordingly, he ordered the plaint in each of the four suits to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court of Bombay but all the four appeals were summarily dismissed. The Letters Patent appeals preferred by the plaintiff from the decision of the Single Judge were also dismissed summarily. These appeals have been preferred against that decision of the Bombay High Court in Letters Patent Appeals on special leave obtained from this Court.

3. Under S. 5, Sub-s. 8 of the Rent Act unless there is anything repugnant in the context, "premises" means, among other things, "any land not being used for agricultural purposes." It is undisputed in these cases that the land in respect of which the suits were brought was not being used for agricultural purposes and so comes within the definition of "premises" in Section 5.

4. The provisions of Part II of the Act do not however apply to all premises which fall within this definition. Section 6 with which this Part II opens provides in its first sub-section that this part shall apply to premises let for residence, education, business, trade or storage in areas specified in Schedule I. It is subject to a proviso that the State Government may direct that in any of the said areas, this Part shall cease to apply to premises let for any of the said purposes, with a further proviso that the State Government may against direct that in any of the said areas this Part shall re-apply to premises let for such of the aforesaid purposes. As there has been no notification under these provisos affecting the premises in suit, we are not concerned with them; nor are we concerned with sub-s. (1) (a) under which the State Government may direct that this Part shall apply to premises let for any other purposes. The four premises in respect of which the four suits were brought are all within the city of Bombay and thus in the area specified in Schedule I of the Act. In each of these cases we have therefore to examine the purpose of the lease and to decide whether it was let for residence or for education, business, trade or storage. The lease mentions that the lessee will construct buildings suitable for residential, business industrial or office purposes. The plaintiff s case is that as open land is not intended to be used as it is for residence or business but for construction of buildings for residence or business the land is not being let for residence or business. The defendant in each case contends that the letting wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document