http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATERBOMBAY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS, ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       23/02/1996

BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) KULDIP SINGH (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1541            JT 1996 (3)   190  1996 SCALE  (2)415

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T G.B. PATTANAIK, J.      These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of  the division  bench of  Bombay High Court dated 8.2.1993 arising  out of  writ petition nos. 539 of 1981 and 1606 of 1983 respectively.      The facts  are not  in dispute  namely the respondents’ industries had  got their  guest houses  in Bombay  and  the Municipal  Corporation   of  Bombay  treating  the  premises falling under Category under ’C’ the Bombay Electricity Duty Act raised  a bill  for payment  of  electricity  duty.  The respondents being  aggrieved by  the said billing filed writ petition in the Bombay High Court contending inter alia that the premises  having been  used  as  guest  houses  for  the occupation of  the employees  of the company, the same could not have  been categorized  as Category ’R’ and the order of the Municipal  Corporation is  invalid and  inoperative. The appellant - Municipal Corporation in its return filed before the learned  Single Judge  took the  stand that  the  tariff under Category ’R’ is exclusively meant for premises used as ’private residential premises’ and tariff under Category ’C’ is meant  for all  non industrial premises and a guest house maintained by  a commercial  undertaking even for occupation of  its  employees  cannot  come  within  Category  ’R’  and therefore rightly  they have been charged in accordance with the tariff  meant for Category ’C’. The learned Single Judge on consideration  of the  relevant provisions  of the tariff came to  the conclusion  that Category  ’R’ is restricted to premises used  as private  residence and by a fixed category for example  a family  whose occupation  is permanent  or at least of  a duration  dependent on factors such as length of service or  posting at a place etc. and it will not apply to cases where  flats are  provided for  transitory periods for out-station officers and directors. The learned Single Judge accordingly held  that the  placing of  the  premises  under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Category ’C’  is fully justified and the Writ petitions were dismissed. The  respondents being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of  the learned  Single Judge  preferred appeals to the Division  Bench. The  Division  Bench  by  the  impugned judgment came  to the  conclusion that  since the company is using the  premises as  guest house without any intention to make profit and it is not the business of the company to run a  guest  house  it  must  be  held  that  the  premises  is exclusively used  for its own purpose and accordingly tariff rate meant for Category ’R’ should apply. The Division Bench construed  that   the  word   "private"  in  the  expression "exclusively used  as a private residential premise" must be read as  opposed to  "public". It  further came to hold that since guest  house  maintained  by  the  company  is  not  a business proposition  it cannot be held to be for commercial purpose and  unless the  premises is used for any commercial purposes then  the same  cannot be  categorized as ’C’. With this conclusion the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been reversed  and the  appeals  having  been  allowed,  the present appeals  by special  leave have  been filed  in this Court.      Mr.  Reddy,   learned  Additional   Solicitor   General appearing for  the appellant  contended  that  the  Division Bench of  the Bombay  High Court  totally  misconstrued  the expression  "exclusively   used  as  a  private  residential premise" and  the said  expression has  no co-relation  with either the  object of  profit making  or it is to be read in contradistinction to  the word  ’public’. According  to  Mr. Reddy,  the   expression  "exclusively  used  as  a  private residential premise"  must be  given its natural grammatical construction and if such a construction being given it would apply to  those premises  which  are  used  for  residential purpose  and   will  certainly  not  apply  to  guest  house maintained by  a company  or a  commercial undertaking where its employees come and reside for some time when they are in Bombay. Mr.  Naik, learned  senior counsel appearing for the respondents on  the other hand contended that when under the Bombay Electricity  Duty Act two different tariffs have been provided for,  one for  the premises  used  for  residential purpose and the other for premises used for business, trade, commercial undertaking  or professional  purpose  the  guest house belonging  to the  commercial  undertaking  must  come within the  first category  and therefore the Division Bench was wholly  justified in directing the payment of tariff for such  guest   houses  bringing   them  under  Category  ’R’. According to  learned counsel guest houses are maintained by commercial undertakings  to be  used by  its employees  when they come  to  the  cities  and  therefore  the  purpose  of maintenance of  such guest houses is undoubtedly residential and consequently the categorization must be Category ’R’.      In view  of  the  rival  submissions  at  the  bar  the question that  arises for consideration is, what is the true meaning of  the expression  "exclusively used  as a  private residential premises’? A premise to come within Category ’C’ Part I  to the  Schedule of  Electricity Tariff  must  be  a premise which  is exclusively  used as a private residential premise. It  is a  cardinal principle  of Construction  of a Statute that the words must be given its natural meaning and must be understood in its ordinary or popular sense and each word must have its play. Natural and ordinary meaning of the words should  not be  departed from  unless it is shown that the context in which the words are used requires a different meaning.  Under   the  Bombay  Electricity  Duty  Act,  1958 (hereinafter referred, to as ’the Act’), under Section 3(1), electricity Duty  shall be  levied and  paid on the units of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

energy consumed  at the  rates specified  in the Schedule to the Act.  In the  Schedule -  Part A provided the tariff for premises used  for residential  purposes and Part B provided the tariff for premises used for business, trade, commercial undertaking or  professional purposes.  The said Schedule of electricity tariff has been changed from time to time and in the case  in hand we are concerned with the tariff which was effective from  20th March,  1981. Under  the aforesaid 1981 tariff, Category  ’R’ would  apply to  premises  exclusively used as  a private  residential premises  and  Category  ’C’ would apply,  as a residuary category to premises which does not come  within categories R, S, RC (LV) and SL. This being the position  the question  for consideration is whether the guest house  maintained by  the company  for the  use of its employees when  they come  to the  city can  be held to be a premise "exclusively  used as a private residential premise" so as  to come  within the  Category ’R’? On a plain literal meaning being  given to  each of  the word in the expression "exclusively used  as a  private residential premises" it is difficult for  us to hold that the guest house maintained by a company  aforesaid expression.  The  aforesaid  expression connotes that  the premises  in question must be exclusively used as  a residential  premises which  in other words would mean where the premise which is used by any person privately for its  own residence  for a  sufficiently continued period and not a premise where a person can come and spend a day or a night and then go back. The guest houses are maintained by company or  commercial undertaking  on the  other hand  is a part of  its commercial  venture and  such  premises  by  no stretch of imagination can be held to be meant for exclusive use as  private residential  premises. The Division Bench of Bombay  High  Court  in  our  considered  opinion  committed serious error  in applying the test of profit making as well as  the   test   of   use   of   the   word   ’private’   in contradistinction to  ’public’, which in our opinion have no relevance for  interpreting the expression "exclusively used as a private residential premises". The context in which the aforesaid expression  has been  used for  determining tariff under the  Act, it  can only apply when any premises is used as a  private residential  premises. The  word ’exclusively’ also must  be given  a rational meaning and viewed from that angle, we are of the considered opinion that the guest house maintained by  a company  or commercial  undertaking in  the cities can’t  be held a premise which is exclusively used as private residential  premise. Therefore, Category ’R’ of the tariff cannot  be held  to be  applicable. The  appeals  are accordingly allowed.  The judgement of the Division Bench of Bombay High  Court is set aside, the writ petitions filed by the respondents  stand dismissed.  There will be no order as to costs.