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

PETITIONER: MST.  SUBHADRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NARSAJI CHENAJI MARWADI

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/08/1961

BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. WANCHOO, K.N. GUPTA, K.C. DAS DAYAL, RAGHUBAR

CITATION:  1966 AIR  806            1966 SCR  (3)  98  CITATOR INFO :  R          1970 SC1475  (4)  OPN        1980 SC 590  (4)

ACT: Standard  Rent-Land assessed for  agricultural  purposes--If ’premises’-Bombay  Rents,  Hotel and  Lodging  Houses  Rates Control Act, 1947 (57 of 1947), ss.5(8) , 6, 11.

HEADNOTE: The  owner  of a certain plot of land  granted  a  perpetual lease of it on an annual rent to some persons who sublet  it to  the respondent on a higher rent.  The respondent  sublet the  plot to the appellant on a still higher rent.   In  all the  three  deeds of lease it was recited  that  the  lessee might  construct  buildings  on  the  land  after  obtaining sanction  of the appropriate authority but on the  dates  of all the three leases the plot was assessed for  agricultural purposes  under  the Bombay Land Revenue  Code,  1879.   The appellant obtained sanction of the Collector for  conversion of  user  of  the land to  non-agricultural  purposes.   The appellant  thereafter applied to the court for  fixation  of standard  rent of the plot under ’s.11 of the Bombay  Rents, Hotel  and  Lodging  Houses Rates Control  Act,  1947.   The ’respondent  contended that the land when granted  in  lease being agriculture I, the provisions of the Act did not apply thereto.  The question which arose for decision was  whether the  plot  of  land was ’Premises’  within  the  meaning  of s.5(8)of the Act. Held,  that the material date for ascertaining  whether  the plot  is ’premises’ is the date of letting and not the  date of  the  application for fixing the standard rent.   In  the present  case the plot in dispute could not be  regarded  as ’premises’  under s. 5(8) of the Bombay Act on the  date  of letting  and the application for fixation of  standard  rent was not maintainable.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 356 of 58.

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

Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated January 21, 1955, of the Bombay High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 813 of 1953. S.   T.  Desai,  S.  N.  Andley  and  Rameshwar  Nath,   for appellant. I. N. Shroff, for the respondent. 99 1961.  August 9. The judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH,  J.-Pot  No. 68 Town Planning Scheme  No.  1  Jamalpur Ahmedabad,  part  of  survey  No.  405  Mouje  Rajpur-Hirpur admeasuring approximately 38 Gunthas was owned by, Bai Jekor and  her  two sisters.  By a lease dated October  15,  1934, this  plot  of land was granted in lease by  the  owners  in perpetuity to Gajjar Ramanlal Gordhandas and his brother  at annual  rental  of Rs.558. The  lesseesGajjars-sublet  by  a lease dated February 7, 1946, the plot also in perpetuity to Narsaji  Chenaji  Marwadihereinafter  referred  to  as   the respondent-at an annual rental of Rs. 1,425.  The respondent by  deed dated April 25, 1947, sublet the plot to  Subhadra- hereinafter  referred  to  as the  appellant--it  an  annual rental  of  Rs.  2,225.  In all these three  deeds,  it  was recited that the lessees may construct buildings on the land and for obtaining sanction in that behalf, the lessors shall make  applications to the Collector or any  other  authority for that purpose.  The plot on the dates of the three leases was  assessed for agricultural purposes.  Under  the  Bombay Land Revenue Code V of 1879, land assessed for  agricultural purposes  may  be  used  for  non-agricultural  purpose   if permission in that behalf is granted by the Collector.   The appellant  applied for permission for conversion of user  of the land to non-agricultural purposes, and the Collector  of Ahmedabad  by  order  dated November  11,  1949,  sanctioned conversion  of  the  user.   Thereafter,  the  appellant  by application dated October 27, 1950, applied to the Court  of Small  Causes., Ahmedabad for fixation of standard  rent  of the plot under s. 11 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and  Lodging Houses Rates, Control Act 57 of 1947-hereinafter referred to as  the  Act.  The respondent contended that the  land  when granted  in  lease  being agricultural,  the  provisions  of Bombay  Act did not apply thereto ;ad the  application,  was not maintainable.  The 100 Court   of  Small  Causes  upheld  the  contention  of   the respondent  and dismissed the application.  This  order  was confirmed  in appeal to the District Court at Ahmedabad  and in a revision application to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.  The, appellant has, with special leave, appealed to this court against the order of the High 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 purpose to fix standard  rent  of  any premises.  But s.11 is in Part 11 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

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

meaning  of  s.  5 (8) of the Act and that it  was  let  for residence,  education, business, trade or storage.  For  the purposes  of  this  appeal, it is  unnecessary  to  consider whether the plot was let for residence, education, business, trade or storage.  The expression ",premises" is defined  by s. 5 (8) and the material part of the definition is :               "In   this  Act,  unless  there  is   anything               repugnant to the subject or context  x x x x               (8)   "’premises" means-                (a) any land not being used for  agricultural               purposes,               101               (b)   any  building or part of a building  let               separately   (other  than  a  farm   building)               including-               (i)   the  garden, grounds, garages  and  out-               houses if any, appurtenant to such building or               part of a building,               (ii)  any furniture I 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.               x       x       x       x Reading  s. 5 sub-cl. (8) with s. 6(1), it is manifest  that Part If of the Act can apply in areas specified in Sch.   II to lands (not being used for agricultural purposes) let  for residence,  education,  business,  trade  or  storage.   The material   date  for  ascertaining  whether  the   plot   is "’premises" for purposes of s. 6 is the date of letting  and not  the  date  on which the  application  for  fixation  of standard  rent  is made by the tenant or the  landlord.   We agree with the High Court that the plot in dispute could not be  regarded as "premises" inviting the application of  Part II of the Act.  The application filed by the appellant under s.  11  for  fixation of standard  rent  was  therefore  not maintainable, The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. 102