NALANIKANT RAMADAS GUJJARversusTULASIBAI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

A                     NALANIKANT RAMADAS GUJJAR
                                          v.
                   TULASIBAI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

                                 AUGUST 9, 1996

B           (KULDIP SINGH, M.M. PUNCHHI, N.P. SINGH, MK
              MUKHERJEE AND S. SANGHIR AHMAD, JJ.]

          Bombay Rems Hore/ and Lodging Houses Rates (Control) Act, 1947;
    Sections 5(8) and 13(J)(a)(e)(j) and (k).
c         'Preniises'-Wllat is--Lease granted in res11ect of vacant lan~-AssessCe
    constmcted building thereon before coming into force of 1947 Act-Sub-
    sequent to coming into force of the Act eviction suit filed-Ground of sub-let-
    ting-Held the leased land lvas pren1ises within the n1eaning of section
    5(8)-Expression "not being used"-Significance of-Applicability of
D   Act-Held cmcia/ date is when the 1ight under the Act is sought to bt· enforced
    and not lV'hen the lease lvas granted.

           Respondent's (Plaintiff) predecessor-in-interest leased out a vacant
    plot to Binny Company. The lessee Company constructed a building on the
E   said piece of land and installed pressing and ginning machines thereon
    before coming into force of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses
    Rates (Control) Act, 1947. The Company transferred its rights, title and
    interest in favour of S who in turn transferred the same in favour of the
    appellant (defendant). After coming into force of the 1947 Act the respon-
    dent filed an eviction suit on the gruqnd of sub-letting. The Trial Court
F   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 High Court held that leased land was premises \\ithin
    the meaning of Section 5(8) of the Act and that the provisions of the Act
    were applicable in the facts al)d circumstances of the case. Hence this
G   appeal.

          Dismissing the appeal, this Court

          HELD : 1. The High Court was justified in coming to the condusicn
    that leased land was a premises "1thin the meaning of Section 5(8) of the
H   aforesaid Act and provisions of the said Act were applicable. [435-iF]
                                       430
                 N.R.GUITAR v. TUlAS!BAI [N.P.SINGH,J.]                431

      2. Once a piece of land which was agricultural in nature is put to A
non-agricultural use, it shall be covered by the definition of 'premises'
under Section 5(8) of the Act. Clause (a) of Section 5(8) excludes from the
definition of premises "any land not being used for agricultural purposes".
The words "not being used" are significant. It can be said that the framers
of the Act for applying the provisions of the said Act in the definition of B
'premises' indicated that the crucial date shall be the date when the right
conferred under the Act is sought to be exercised. The lease had been
granted to the Binny Company for installing ginning and processing
machines and admittedly a building was constructed in which ginning and
processing machines were installed and godown was also constructed. As
the land had been put to non-agricultural use several decades before C
coming into force of the Bombay Rent Act, the provisions of the said Act
were applicable. [435-C-E]

    Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajbhai Abdul Rehman & Ors., (1971) l
SCR 66, relied on.
                                                                              D
      Mst. Subhadra v. Narsaji Chenaji Ma1wadi, (1962) 3 SCR 98, held
inapplicable.

        C!VlL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2795 of
1985.
                                                                              E
     From the Judgment and Order dated 22.7.83 of the Kamataka High
Court in C.R.P. No. 39 of 1976.

        Kamlendra Misra, Sidhansu and Devendra Singh for the l\ppellant.

        P.R. Ramasesh for the Respondents.                                    F

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      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   G
eviction of the defendant on the grounds mentioned under Section
13(1)(a)(e), G) and (k} of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses
Rates (Control} Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent
Act).

        Plaintiffs grandfather Venkobacharya Anantacharya Burli had H
     432                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A 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 construe·
     tions 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
B
     pressing machines. Thereafter, the said Binny Company transferred its
     right, title and interest in favour of one Shilvantappa in 1929. Later, the
     aforesaid Shilavantappa transferred the same in favour of the deceased
     husband of defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

C       In the suit for eviction which was filed o'n 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 dismi:;sed the appeal
D 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 Rem Act were ap-
  plicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

           According to the appellant, as the initial lease had been granted in
E
     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
     appiicable.                                                        ·

           This appeal had been listed before a Division Bench of this Court,
F    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 & Ors., [1971] 1 SCR 66 and Mst. Subhadra v.
     Narsaji Chenaji Marwadi, [1962) 3 SCR 98.

           Section 5(8) of the Bombay Rent Act defines 'Premises', follows :--
 G
              '"Premises' means -

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

                  (b) any building or part of a building let separately (other than
 H            a farm building). including -
                N.R. GUJJAR v. TUIASIBAI [N.P. SINGH,J.]                  433

            (i) the garden, grounds, garages and out-houses if any, appur-       A
         tenant to such building or part of a building,

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

             (iii) any fittings affixed to such building or part of a building   B
         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 of 'premises' in the aforesaid Act
it is apparant that it shall not include any land used for agricultural . C
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 construc-
tion over the same for installing ginning and pressing machines and in fact D
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 agricul-
tural purposes.

       From the judgment in the case of Mst. Subhadra (supra) it appears
                                                                                 E
that the owner of a certain plot of land granted a perpetual lease to some
persons who sublet it to the respondent cif that case on a higher rent. In
the deed of lease it had been recited that the lessee might construct
buildings on the land after obtaining sanction of the appropriate authority.
The appellant of that case obtained sanction of the Collector for conversion     F
of user of the land to non-agricultural purposes. Thereafter standard rent
of the plot under Section 11 of the Bombay Rent Act was fJXed. It was said
by this Court :

        "It is common ground that till November 11, 1949, the plot was G
        assessed for agricultural purposes under the Bombay Land
        Revenue Code. In the year 1947, the plot was undoubtedly lying
        fallow, but on that account, the user of the land cannot be deemed
        to be altered. User of the land could only be altered by the order
        of the Collector granted under s. 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue
        Code. Section 11 of the Bombay Act 57 of 1947 enables a com- H
                                                                                     "


    434                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A           petent court upon application made to it for that purpose to fix
            standard rent of any premises. But S.11 is in Part II of the Act and
            by s.6 cl. (1), it is provided that in areas specified in Scheduled I,
            Part II applies to premises let for residence, education, business,
            trade or storage. There is no dispute that Part II applied to the
            area in which the plot is situate; but before the appellant could
B
            maintain an application for fixation of standard rent under s.11,
            she had to establish that the plot of land leased was "premises"
            within the meaning of s.5(8) of the Act and that it was let for
            residence, education, business, trade or storage."

C It was futher said that material date for ascertaining whether the plot is
    'premises' for purpose of Section 6 is the date of letting and not the date
    on which the application for fixation of standard rent was made by the
    tenant or the landlord.

          In the case of Vasudev Dlwnjibhai Modi (supra), the appellant before
D this Court was the landlord of certain premises in Ahmedabad, who filed
    a suit for ejectment, which was ultimately decreed. During the execution
    of the decree a stand was taken by the defendant that the provisions of the
    Bombay Rent Act were not applicable to the premises because the land
    was leased out for agricultural purposes. While allowing the appeal of the
E   landlord, this Court said :

                "It is plain that the Court exercising power under the Bombay
             Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 has no
             jurisdiction to entertain a suit for possession of land used for
             agricultural purposes. Again in ascertaining whether the land
F            demised is used for agricultural purposes, the crucial date is date
             on which the right conferred by the Act is sought to be exercised."

    This Court expressed the opinion in the case of Vasudev Rafabhai Modi
    (supra) that whether the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act shall be
G   applicable or not, the crucial date for ascertaining the nature of the use of
    the land in question shall be the date when the rights under the aforesaid
    Act are to be exercised.

           In the case of Mst. Subhadra (supra) the land which had been let out
     for agricultural purpose, no construction whatsoever appears to have been
H    made on the same. The landlord only got an order of conversion on basis
                    N.R.GUJJAR v. TIJLASIBAI [N.P.SINGH,J.]                435

    whereof he filed a petition for fixation of standard rent of the plot under A
    the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. So far the case of Vasudev
    Rajabl!ai Modi (supra) is concerned on the land which had been leased
    out, construction had been.made from which eviction was being sought by
    the landlord and in that context it was said that the crucial date for
    ascertaining whether the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act shall be
                                                                                   B
    applicable or no~ shall be the date when the right under the Act was sought
    to be exercised. So far the facts of the present case are concerned, the lease

-   had been granted to the Binny Company for installing ginning and process~
    ing machines and admittedly a building was constructed in which ginning
    and processing machines were installed and godown was also constructed.
    Once a piece of land which was agricultural in nature is put to not-agricul- c
    tural use, it shall be covered by the definition of 'premises' under Section
    5(8) of the Bombay Rent Act. It need not be impressed that clause (a) of
    Section 5(8) excludes from the definition of premises "any land not being
    used for agricultural purposes". The words not being used are significant.
    It can be said that the framers of the Act for applying the provisions of the D
    said Act in the definition of 'premises' indicated that the crucial date shall
    be the date when the right conferred under the Act is sought to be
    exercised. There being no dispute in the present case that the land had
    been put to non-agricultural use several decades before coming into force
    of the Bombay Rent Act, the provisions of the said Act were applicable.
    We are in respectful agreement with the views expressed in the case of E
    Vasudev Rajabhai Modi (supra).

          The High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that it was
    a premises within the meaning of Section (8) of the aforesaid Act and
    provisions of the said Act were applicable. Accordingly, the appeal fails
    and it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.                    F

    T.N.A.                                                  Appeal dismissed.