Judgement

N. P. SINGH, J.:- The defendant in a suit for eviction is the appellant before this Court. The Plaintiff-respondents filed the suit in question for eviction of the defendant on the grounds mentioned under Section 13(1) (a) (e), (j) and (k) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act).

2. Plaintiffs grandfather Venkobacharya Anantacharya Burli had leased out a portion of R. S. No. 62 of Bagalkot, measuring 275 East to West and 634 North to South, to Binny Company of Madras, in the year 1889. The Binny Company had taken the said lease for making constructions to set up ginning and pressing machines and for construction of godown to store cotton. The said company made constructions including the godown over the said leasehold area and installed the ginning and pressing machines. Thereafter, the said Binny Company transferred its right, title and interest in favour of one Shilvantappa in 1929, Later, the aforesaid Shilvantappa transferred the same in favour of the deceased husband of defendants Nos. 1 and 2.

3. In the suit for eviction which was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs. apart from other grounds, it was alleged that the defendant had sub-let the premises in question to various persons including defendants Nos. 4 to 16. The Trial Court dismissed the said suit on the ground that the provisions of Bombay Rent Act were not applicable to the leasehold area, over which the construction had been made. The District Judge dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiffs. The Civil Revision filed on behalf of the plaintiffs has been allowed by the High Court. The High Court has come to the conclusion that the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act were applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. According to the appellant, as the initial lease had been granted in respect of vacant land measuring 275 x 634 in favour of the Binny Company aforesaid, the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act shall not be applicable.

5. This appeal had been listed before a Division Bench of this Court, which referred it to a Constitution Bench to resolve the conflict between the two judgments of this Court in the cases of Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman, (1971) 1 SCR 66 : (AIR 1970 SC 1475) and Mst. Subhadra v. Narsaji Chenaji Marwadi, (1962) 3 SCR 98 : (AIR 1966 SC 806).

6. Section 5(8) of the Bombay Rent Act defines Premises :-

follows:-

" Premises means -

(a) any land not being used for agricultural purposes,

(b) any building or part of a building let separately (other than a farm building) including -

(i) the garden, grounds, garages and outhouses, if any, appurtenant to such building or part of a building,

(ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building or part of a building.

(iii) and fittings affixed to such building or part of a building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof, but does not include a room or other accommodation in a hotel or lodging house.

From a plain reading of the definition of premises in the aforesaid Act it is apparent that it shall not include any land used for agricultural purposes but certainly shall include any land which is not being used for agricultural purposes. From the records it appears that there is no dispute that when the lease was granted in favour of the Binny Company as early as in the year 1889, it was an open site having no building thereon at that time. But the Binny Company had taken the said land for making construction over the same for installing ginning and pressing machines and in fact a building was constructed on the said piece of land in which ginning and pressing machines were installed. In this background, when the Bombay Rent Act came in force the leasehold area was not being used for agricultural purposes.

7. From the judgment in the case of Mst. Subhadra, (AIR 1966 SC 806), (supra) it appears that the owner of a certain plot of land granted a perpetual lease to some p