Back
1986 Supreme(Cal) 458
High Court Of Calcutta
D. K. SEN, MANJULA BOSE
EAST INDIA HOTELS LTD. - Appellant
Versus
CORPN.OF CALCUTTA - Respondent
Matter 1327 Of 1982
Decided On : 12/09/1986
The doctrine of ejusdem generis applies to Section 443 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, and a restaurant that provides items of amusement occasionally or incidentally to its customers is not a place of public resort, recreation, or amusement similar to a theatre, circus, cinema house, or dancing hall.
Headnote:
CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL ACT - SECTION 443 - LICENSING AND CONTROL OF THEATRES, CIRCUSES AND PLACES OF PUBLIC AMUSEMENT - INTERPRETATION - RESTAURANT PROVIDING ITEMS OF AMUSEMENT - WHETHER A PLACE OF PUBLIC RESORT, RECREATION OR AMUSEMENT - DOCTRINE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS - APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a hotel owner, challenged the increased license fees imposed by the Corporation of Calcutta under Section 443 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, for its restaurants that provided items of amusement like music and floor shows. The appellant contended that the restaurants were not places of public resort, recreation, or amusement similar to theatres, circuses, cinema houses, or dancing halls, which were specifically mentioned in Section 443, and thus did not fall within the mischief of the section.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the doctrine of ejusdem generis applied to Section 443 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, and that the general term 'other similar place of public resort, recreation or amusement' should be construed in light of the specific words 'theatres, circuses, cinema houses, dancing halls.' The Court found that a restaurant that occasionally or incidentally provided items of amusement to its customers was not a place of public resort, recreation, or amusement similar to a theatre, circus, cinema house, or dancing hall, and thus did not fall within the mischief of Section 443.
Issues: 1. Whether the doctrine of ejusdem generis applies to Section 443 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. 2. Whether a restaurant that provides items of amusement occasionally or incidentally to its customers is a place of public resort, recreation, or amusement similar to a theatre, circus, cinema house, or dancing hall.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court applied the doctrine of ejusdem generis to Section 443 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, because the section contained an enumeration of specific words (theatres, circuses, cinema houses, dancing halls), the members of the enumeration constituted a class (places of public resort, recreation, or amusement), the class was not exhausted by the enumeration, a general term followed the enumeration ('other similar place of public resort, recreation or amusement'), and there was no indication that the general term should be given a broader meaning. 2. The Court held that a restaurant that provides items of amusement occasionally or incidentally to its customers is not a place of public resort, recreation, or amusement similar to a theatre, circus, cinema house, or dancing hall. The Court reasoned that the class of places enumerated in Section 443 was defined by their primary and exclusive purpose of providing recreation or amusement to the public, and that a restaurant's main business was to supply and sell foodstuff, with any amusement provided being incidental to that main business.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court's judgment, and quashed the impugned notifications insofar as they applied to the appellant. The Court directed the respondents not to enforce the notifications against the appellant and to refrain from calling upon the appellant to obtain licenses under Section 443 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951.
( 1 ) THE East India Hotels Limited, the appellant No. 1, an existing company within meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, carries on business, inter alia, of running hotels and restaurants in India. In its said business, the appellant 1 owns and runs a hotel known as "oberoi Grand" situated at No. 15, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta. The said hotel is classified as a Five Star hotel in the Government classification list and caters, inter alia, to foreign tourists.
( 2 ) THE appellant 1 provides lodging and meals in the said hotel and serves alcoholic beverages. In order to maintain its standard as required in its classification, the hotel has three restaurants within its premises known respectively as the Moghul Room, the Polynesia and the Princes.
( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that in the said restaurants the appellant 1 provides music and items of amusement like floor shows and cabarets especially on particular occasions like Christmas eve and new year's eve. It is also not in dispute that the said restaurants are open to persons other than the residents of the hotel.
( 4 ) AT all material times, prior to the present proceeding, the appellant No. 1 had applied for and obtained licences from the Corporation of Calcutta, the respondent No. 1, under S. 443 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 for running the said restaurants. Initially the fee for such licence in respect of each restaurant was fixed at Rs. 250/- per annum by the respondent No. 1. Subsequently the said fee was increased from time to time up to Rs. 5,000/- per annum for each restaurant. The appellant contended that it was entitled to run the said three restaurants under one licence and that the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to issue and charge for three different licences and paid the licence fees fixed by the respondent No. 1 under protest.
( 5 ) THE Administrator of the Corporation of Calcutta, the respondent No. 2, passed an order on 22nd Mar. , 1982 by which the respondent No. 2 increased the fees for licence under S. 443 of the said Act under S. 548 (2) thereof as follows : licence fees for any dancing floor or any restaurant or any bar with items of any amusements/music etc. situated inside the hotel. Rate per annum per such dancing hall or restaurant or bar Rs. 15,000.
( 6 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the appellant No. 1 received three several notices all dt. 5th May, 1982, from the respondent No. 2 where it was stated that on 22nd March, 1982 the respondent No. 2 had revised the licence fees under S. 443 read with S. 548 (2) of the said Act for the year 1982-83 with effect from 1st April, 1982 in the following manner : Rate per annum (A) Licence fees for hotels having dancing floors/restaurants (with or without bar) with items of music, amusements etc. (a) Rs. 15,000/- (B) Licence fees for restaurants (with bar) with items of musics, amusements etc. (b) Rs. 5,000/- (C) Licence fees for restaurant (without bar) with items of amusements and music etc. (c) Rs. 2,400/-
( 7 ) BY the said notices the appellant 1 was required to make immediate payment in respect of its hotel and restaurants as fixed.
( 8 ) BY its letter dt. 12th May, 1982, the appellant 1 asked for clarification from the officer concerned of the respondent 1 whether in view of the revised licence fees the appellant 1 was required to take out one licence for all the restaurants or separate licence for each such restaurant. The appellant 1 tendered licence fees at the previous rate under cover of the said letter. By its letter dt. 24th May, 1982, the Deputy Commissioner of Corporation of Calcutta, the respondent 4, informed the appellant 1 that the respondent No. 2 has revised the licence fees under the said Act as he was empowered to do so. The appellant 1 was further informed that it was liable to pay licence fees for all dancing halls or other place of public resort in the said hotel separately and individually as each such places or hall constituted a separate places for recreation or am
