Civil Appeal No 2047 of 1969
A Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 25 6 1969 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision Petition No 34667
Y section Chitaley section K Mehta P N Puri and E M Sarul Anam for the Appellant
A T M Sampath and P N Ramalingam for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHlNNAPPA REDDY J
The short question for consideration in this appeal is whether the practice of the legal profession is business  within the meaning of Section 103 a iii of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings Lease Rent and Eviction Control Act 1960
The question arises this way
The respondent an Advocate filed an application before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the appellant his tenant from the premises in question on the ground that he required the premises for the purpose of carrying on his profession as an Advocate
The application was contested by the appellant who was carrying on the business of manufacturing art jewellery in the premises
We are not concerned in this appeal with the several defences which were raised by the appellant
Nor are we concerned with the vicissitudes which the case underwent
For the purposes of this appeal it is sufficient to say that the final Court of fact namely the Chief Judge of the Court of Small causes Hyderabad found that the respondent bona fide required the premises for the purpose of carrying on his profession as an Advocate and that the tenancy was not such as could be split up
The Appellate authorities passed an order of eviction against the appellant
Before the High Court in revision it was contended by the appellant that the practice of the profession of an Advocate was not business within the meaning of Section 103 a iii and therefore the respondent could not seek the eviction of the appellant on the ground that he required the premises for the purpose of carrying on his profession as an Advocate
It was contended that Section 103 a iii used the expression business  only and not the expression profession  The contention was negatived by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh consisting of Gopalrao Ekbote and Ramachandra Rao JJ
The tenant has appealed by special leave to this Court
Dr Chitaley learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was a clear distinction between business  and profession  and that the practice of a liberal profession like that of an Advocate or a Doctor which 14 had nothing commercial about it was not business within the meaning of Section 10 3 a iii of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings  Lease Rent and Eviction control Act 1960
He argued that though the Andhra Pradesh Act broadly classified buildings into residential and non residential buildings the landlord of a non residential building could not seek to evict his tenant on the ground of his requirement unless it was for the purpose of carrying on a business
According to the learned Counsel this indicated that the expression business was to be given a narrow meaning and was to be confined to activities of a commercial nature
The learned Counsel also urged that the Court should favour a construction which would be beneficient to the tenant
Dr Chitaley relied on M P Sethurama Menon vs Thaiparambath Kunhukutty Amma s daughter Meenakshi Amma and Ors
1 Bangalore Water Supply  Sewerage Board etc
vs R Rajappa  Ors
2 and Stuchbery  Ors
vs General Accident Fire and Life Insurance Corporation Ltd3 The expression business has not been defined in the Andhra Pradesh Buildings Lease Rent and Eviction Control Act 1960
It is a common expression which is sometimes used by itself and sometimes in a collocation of words as in business trade or profession
It is a word of large and wide import capable of a variety of meanings
It is needless to refer to the meanings given to that term in the various Dictionaries except to say that everyone of them notices a large number of meanings of the word
In a broad sense it is taken to mean everything that occupies the time attention and labour of men for the purpose of livlihood or profit 
In a narrow sense it is confined to commercial activity
It is obvious that the meaning of the word must be gleaned from the context in which it is used
Reference to the provisions of the Constitution or other statutes where the expression is used cannot be of any assistance in determining its meaning in Section 103 a iii of the Andhra Pradesh Building Lease Rent and Eviction Control Act 1960
It is not a sound principle of construction tn interpret expressions used in one Act with reference to their use in another Act more so if the two Acts in which the same word is used are not cognate Acts
Neither the meaning nor the definition of the term in one statute affords a guide to the construction of the same term in another statute and the sense in which the term has been understood in the several statutes does not necessarily throw any light on the manner in which the term should be understood generally
On the other hand it is a 1 AIR 1967 Kerala 88
2  3 1949 2 K B D 256
15 sound and indeed a well known principle of construction that meaning of words and expressions used in an Act must take their colour from the content in which they appear
Dr Chitaley very frankly and fairly conceded as much
Now the Andhra Pradesh Buildings Lease Rent and Eviction Control Act 1960 is an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the regulation of leasing of buildings the control of rent thereof anl the prevention of unreasonable eviction of tenants therefrom in the State of Andhra Pradesh
It applies to the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and to all municipalities in the State of Andhra Pradesh
The provisions of the Act however do not apply to buildings owned by the Government and to buildings constructed on or after 26th August 1957
Building is broadly defined as meaning any house or hut or a part of a house or hut let or to be let separately for residential or nonresidential purposes
Landlord is defined as the owner of a building including a person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building on his own account or on behalf of another person etc
Tenant is defined as a person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building
Section 4 provides for the determination of a fair rent of a building on the application of the tenant or landlord
Section 101 provides that a tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of Sections 10 12 and 13
Section 102 mentions several grounds on which a landlord may seek to evict a tenant
The grounds are default of payment of rent sub letting of premises used for a purpose other than that for which it was leased commission of acts of waste conduct amounting to nuisance to the occupiers of the other portions in the same building securing of alternative accommodation by the tenant and denial of the title of the landlord
The grounds mentioned in Section 102 apply both to residential and non residential buildings
Section 103 a i provides for the eviction of a tenant where the landlord of a residential building requires it for his own occupation
Section 103aiii provides for the eviction of a tenant from a non residential building where the landlord is not occupying a non residential building in a city town or village concerned which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled whether under the Act or otherwise a for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on on the date of the application or b for the purpose of a business which in the opinion of the Controller the landlord bona fide proposes to commence
Section 12 and 13 contain special provisions relating to recovery of buildings by landlord for the purpose of effecting repairs alterations or additions or for reconstruction
The scheme of the Act is to prevent unreasonable eviction of 16 tenants by landlords and to provide for eviction on specified grounds
The Act is of general application and its protection not confined to any classes of tenants nor is the right to evict under the Act limited to any class of landlords
There is no reason why a landlord who is a member of the legal or medical professions and who requires the premises for carrying on the practice of his profession should be wholly debarred from obtaining possession of the premises
It is impossible to discover any reason for so making a discrimination against the liberal professions
But that would be the result if the expression business  is given a narrow meaning which the appellant wants us to give to that expression
It would indeed be anamolous to hold that all the provisions of the Act including Section 4 which provides for the determination of fair rent and Section 101 which bars the eviction of tenants apply to nonresidential buildings owned by an Advocate but not Section 10 3 a iii only
In our view the expression business occurring in Section 103aiii is used in a wide sense so as to include the practice of the profession of an Advocate
The Kerala High Court in MP Sethurama Menon vs Meenakshi Amma  Ors
 supra construed the expression trade or business  as connoting commercial activity and as not including the practice of the legal profession
The learned Judges referred to Article 191g of the Constitution Section 49 of the  the Madras Shops and Establishments Act 1947 and drew a distinction between the words business  and profession  As mentioned by us earlier we do not think that it is right to ascribe to the word business  occurring in the Andhra Pradesh Buildings Lease Rent and Eviction Control Act 1960 the same meaning that the word may have when it occurs in other statutory provisions
The word must be interpreted in the context of the statute in which it occurs and not in the context of other statutes or in a manner alien to the context of the statute concerned
In Bangalore Water Supply  Sewerage Board etc
vs R Rajappa Ors supra Chandrachud J as he then was observed 
I find myself unable to accept the broad formulation that a Solicitor s establishment cannot be an industry
A Solicitor undoubtedly does not carry on trade or business when he acts for his client or advises him or pleads for him if and when pleading is permissible to him
He pursues a profession which is variously and justifiably described as learned liberal or noble
 The observations of the Learned Judge were made in the context of the question whether a Solicitor s establishment would fall within the definition of industry  under the 17 Industrial Disputes Act
It would be most unwise to apply this A observation to determine whether the practice of the liberal professions is within the meaning of the expression business  in Rent Control legislation
In Stuchbery  Ors
vs General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd supra it was observed that the carrying on of a Solicitor s business was the carrying on of a profession and was not the carrying on of a trade or business within the meaning of that phrase in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927
The observation was made in the context of that Act which made a distinction between trade or business  and profession 
In fact sub section 3a of Section 17 of the Act expressly said for the purposes of this Section premises shall not be deemed to be premises used for carrying on there at a trade or business by reason of their being used for the purpose of carrying on there at any profession
The question in that case was about the right to compensation for the goodwill attached to the premises where the business or profession was being carried on
We do not think 1 that the case is of any help to the appellant
We may refer here to the decision of Danckwerts J in Re Williams  Will Trusts Chartered Bank of India Australia and China and Another vs Williams and Others1 where the question was whether the bequest to a son for the purpose of starting him in business  was affective to start the son in medical practice
The learned Judge held that it did observing that the word business  was capable of including the practice of a profession and that it plainly included the profession of a Doctor
We may refer to just one more case ie Taramal vs Laxman Sewak Surey Ors2 where this very question whether the practice of law was a business  within the meaning of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act came for consideration before A P Sen J
The learned Judge held that in the context of the Madhya Pradesh Act the word business  had to be given a wide meaning so as to include any profession
We therefore agree with the High Court that the practice of law is business  within the meaning of that expression in Section 103 a iii of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings Lease Rent and Eviction Control Act 196
The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs
M R Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The respondent an advocate sought to evict his tenant the appellant under section 103 a iii of the Andhra Pradesh Building Lease Rent and Eviction Control Act 1960 on the ground that he required the disputed premises for carrying on his profession
The court of small causes Hyderabad finding that the requirement was bona fide passed an eviction order against the appellant
In revision the High Court negatived the contention that the expression business used in section 103aiii did not include the profession  of an advocate
Dismissing the appeal the Court  HELD 1
Business is a word of large and wide import capable of a variety of meanings
In a broad sense it is taken to mean everything that occupies the time attention and labour of men for the purpose of livlihood or profit 
The practice of law is business  within the meaning of that expression in section 103aiii
The Act is of general application and its protection is not confined to any classes of tenants nor is the right to evict under the Act limited to any class of landlords
There is no reason why a landlord who is a member of the legal or medical professions and who requires the premises for carrying on the practice of his profession should be wholly debarred from obtaining possession of the premises
It would be anamolous to hold that all the provisions of the Act apply to non residential buildings owned by an Advocate excepting section 103aiii
14D E 16A B C D Williams  Will Trusts Chartered Bank of India Australia and China and Anr
vs Williams and Ors
 1953 1 All
ELR 536 Taramal vs Laxman Sewak Surey  Ors  approved
M P Sethurama Menon vs Thaiparambath Kunhukutty Amma s daughter Meenakshi Amma  Ors AIR 1967 Kerala 88 Bangalore Water Supply Sewerage Board etc
vs R Rajappa  Ors   Stuchbery  Ors
vs General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp Ltd 1949 2 KBD 256 distinguished
It is a sound principle of construction that meaning of words and expressions used in an Act must take their colour from the context in which they appear
Neither the meaning nor the definition of a term in one statute affords a guide to the construction of the same term in another statute more so if the two Acts in which the same word is used are not cognate Acts and the sense in which a term has been understood in several statutes does not necessarily throw any light on the manner in which it should be under stood generally
14G H  15A 13