http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: NALANIKANT RAMADAS GUJJAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: TULASIBAI (DEAD) BY L.RS.& ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/08/1996

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH, M.M.PUNCHHI, N.P.SINGH, M.K.MUKHERJEE,S.SAGHIR AHMAD

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T 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 Houses Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act).      Plaintiff’s  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 Shilavantappa transferred the same in favour of the deceased husband of defendant Nos. 1 and 2.      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.      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.      This appeal  had been listed before a Division Bench of this Court,  which referred  it to  a Constitution  Bench to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

resolve the conflict between the two judgments of this Court in the  cases of  Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi vs. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman & Ors., 1971 (1) SCR 66 and Mst. Subhadra vs. Narsaji Chenaji Marwadi, 1962 (3) SCR 98.      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     outhouse    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) any  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.      From the judgment in the case of Ms.Subhadra (supra) it appears that  the owner  of a certain plot of land granted a perpetual lease  to  some  persons  who  sublet  it  to  the respondent of  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 of user of the land to nonagricultural purposes. Thereafter standard rent of the plot under  Section 11  of the Bombay Rent Act was fixed. It was said by this Court:           "It  is  common  ground  that,      till November  11, 1949,  the  plot      was   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   competent  court  upon      application made  to  it  for  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    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      Schedule  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 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. It was  further 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  Dhanjibhai  Modi(supra),  the appellant before  this Court  was the  landlord  of  certain premises in Ahmadabad, 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 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      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 Rajabhai Modi  (supra) that  whether the  provisions of  the Bombay Rent Act shall be 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  made  on  the  same.  The landlord only got an order of conversion on basis whereof he filed a  petition for  fixation of standard rent of the plot under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. So far the case of Vasudev  Rajabhai 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 applicable or  not, 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  processing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

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  nonagricultural 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 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 Vasudev Rajabhai Modi (supra).      The  High   Court  was   justified  in  coming  to  the conclusion that  it was  a premises  within the  meaning  of Section 5(8) of the aforesaid Act and provisions of the said Act were applicable, Accordingly, the appeal fails and lt is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.