The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'building' in the Rent Control Act and the exemption of a room in a hotel from the definition of 'building'. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the term 'hotel' and 'room in a hotel' from various judgments and law lexicons.

Headnote:
Rent Control Act - Building - S.2(1) of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965 - The court discussed the definition of 'building' and whether a room in question falls within the definition of 'building' as per the Rent Control Act. The court referred to the definition of 'hotel' and 'room in a hotel' from various judgments and law lexicons to determine the exemption of the room from the definition of 'building'. The court allowed civil revision petition No. 1193 of 1972 based on the finding that the room in question is exempt from the definition of 'building' in the Rent Control Act.
Fact of the Case:

O. S No. 494 of 1971 is a suit for eviction of the defendants from a room in a building called 'Rajasadan' in Quilon. Additional issues 4, 5, and 7 were tried as preliminary issues, including the maintainability of the suit, the competence of the court to grant the prayer, and whether the plaintiff waived quit notice. The court found that the room in question was not exempted from the definition of the term 'building' in the Rent Control Act and that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiff filed CRP. No. 1193 of 1972 against the finding that the Rent Control Act is applicable to the room, and the 1st Defendant filed CRP. No. 1144 of 1972 against the finding that the civil court has jurisdiction and that there was no waiver by the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the room in question is exempt from the definition of 'building' in the Rent Control Act and allowed civil revision petition No. 1193 of 1972. It also found that the civil court's jurisdiction is not barred and that there was no waiver of the quit notice by the plaintiff, and dismissed C. R. P. No. 1144 of 1972.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the suit, the competence of the court to grant the prayer, and whether the plaintiff waived quit notice. The court also addressed the exemption of the room from the definition of 'building' in the Rent Control Act and the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the definition of 'building' in the Rent Control Act and the exemption of the room in question as a 'room in a hotel'. The court referred to various judgments and law lexicons to determine the meaning of 'hotel' and 'room in a hotel' and concluded that the room in question is exempt from the definition of 'building' in the Rent Control Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed civil revision petition No. 1193 of 1972, dismissed C. R. P. No. 1144 of 1972, and made no order as to costs in either of these civil revision petitions.

Judgment :-

1. O. S No. 494 of 1971 is a suit instituted for eviction of the defendants therein from a room in a building called "Rajasadan" in Quilon. The 1st Defendant in the suit was residing in Room No. 9 and the plaint allegation was that be allowed the 2nd Defendant to reside without the permission of the plaintiff Additional issues 4, 5 and 7 were tried as preliminary issues. These issues are:

"4. Whether the suit is maintainable?

5. Whether the court is competent to grant the prayer prayed for? 7. Whether the plaintiff has waived quit notice".

Additional issues 4 and 5 were raised on the basis of the contention that the room from which eviction was sought was "a room in a hotel" and therefore did not fall within the main part of the definition of the term "building' in S.2(1) of we Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965. which expressly excludes "a room in a hotel or boarding house" from the definition of the term'building'. The court below found that the room in question was not a room in a hotel as there was no supply of food. It was conceded that it was not a room in a boarding house. It was therefore of the view that the room in question was not exempted from the definition of the term 'building in the Act. Nevertheless it came to the conclusion that although the Rent Control Act was applicable, the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit was not barred On additional issue No. 7 it found that there had not been any waiver by acceptance of rent, subsequent to the issuance of the notice by the plaintiff Against the finding that the Rent Control Act is applicable to the room in question, the plaintiff has preferred CRP. No. 1193 of 1972. Against the finding that the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that there has been no waiver on the part of the plaintiff (the subject-matter of issue No. 7) the 1st Defendant has preferred CRP. No. 1144 of 1972.

2. The first question for determination is whether the subject-matter of the suit is governed by the provisions of the Rent Control Act. S.2(1) of the Act reads:

"2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,

(1) "building" means any building or but or part of a building or hut, let or to b-1st separately for residential or non-residential purposes and includes

(a) the garden, grounds, wells, tanks and structures, if any. appurtenant to such building, hut, or part of such building or hut. and let or to be let along with such building or hut;

(b) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building or but or part of a building or hut;

(c) any fittings or machinery belonging to the landlord. affixed to or installed in such building, or part of such building and intended to be used by the tenant for or in connection with the purposes for which such building or part of such building is to be let, but does not include a room in a hotel or boarding house;".

It is conceded that the building in question is not a boarding house. But what is contended for the plaintiff is that the building is a'hotel' and that the room, from which eviction was sought is a room in a hotel. Despite the contention raised by Counsel for the Defendants, that the plea is not expressly covered by the pleadings in the case, I am satisfied that the replication filed by the plaintiff expressly raises the contention that the room in question is a room in a hotel. The question therefore is: What is a hotel? and is the room in question a room'in a hotel? In Associate Hotels of India Ltd. v. R. N. Kapoor (AIR. 1959 SC. 1262) the eviction was sought from a room in the Imperial Hotel, New Delhi, used for the purpose of conducting a barber shop. Justice S. K. Das. agreed with the judgment of Justice Subba Rao that the document on the basis of which the room was held was a lease and not a licence. The next question that was agitated was the true scope and effect of S.2(b) of the Delhi and Ajmer Merwara Rent Control Act, 19 of 1947 which also co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document