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.
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
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
