Special Leave Petition No12541 of 1990
From the Judgement and Order dated 2181990 of the Bombay High Court in WP No 2677 and 4128 of 1983
UR Lalit AM Khanwilkar and Mrs VD Khanna for the Petitioner
MC Bhandare VN Ganpule Satish K Agnihotri and Mrs Suman B Rastogi for the Respondent
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by K JAGANNATHA SHETTY J The shop premises belonging 154 to the respondent landlady was taken on rent by the petitioner for business purposes
The premises are within the scope of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 The Bombay Rent Act 
The petitioner has been carrying on business in sweet meats and farsen
The landlady brought action to recover possession of the premises under Section 131c on the ground that the tenant has been convicted of using the premises
It is not in dispute that the tenant was convicted on three occasions first in 1968 for selling adulterated Desi butter and second in 1972 for selling sugar garlands coloured with meantanil yellow a coaltar dye which is a prohibited colouring agent
In the second judgement of conviction it has been stated that the tenant had admitted two previous convictions and in one of the cases he was sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1000
All the convictions and sentences were under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
The Bomaby High Court has accepted the claim of the landlady and ordered eviction under Section 131c
The tenant seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Bomaby High Court
Section 131c of the Bombay Rent Act reads 131 Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act but subject to the provisions of sections 15 and 15A a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied c that the tenant or any persons residing with the tenant has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to the adjoining or neighbouring occupiers or has been convicted of using the premises or allowing the premises to be used for immoral or illegal purposes or that the tenant has in respect of the premises been convicted of an offence of contravention of any provision of clause a of sub section 1 of section 394 or of Section 394 A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act
 Underlining is ours Section 131c inter alia provides that the landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied that the tenant or any person residing with the tenant has been guilty of conduct or has been convicted of using the premises or allowing the premises to be used for immoral or illegal purposes etc
155 Counsel for the tenant submits that the expression convicted of using the premises must be limited to offences which involve the user of the premises and user of the premises must by itself be an offence under law
By way of illustration reference was made to the Immoral Traffic PreventionAct 1956 and the Bomaby Prevention of Gambling Act 1887 whereunder the use of the premises for illegal purposes has been defined as an offence and punishable
It is only such conviction counsel contends that it would expose the tenant to the risk of ejectment under Section 131c
It is also argued that Section 131c does not cover non residential premises and it covers only the residential premises
We will consider the second question first
The contention is based on the term used in clausec namely that the tenant or any person residing with the tenant has been  and it is said that the expression residing with the tenant indicates that clause c is applicable only to residential premises
The essence of the submission is that business premises are not used for residence
A Division Bench ofthe Bombay High Court in a separate judgement connected with this case has not accepted that interpretation
It has expressed the view that clause c covers equally residential and non residential premises and the expression residing with the tenant used in clause c only indicates that the offence contemplated in clausec could be committed by the tenant or any person residing with tenant
We concur with this view
Section 131c applies to any premises
Section 58 defines premises  to mean amongst others any building or part of a building let or given on licence separately other than a farm building
If clause c is not applicable to business premises there is no other similar provision in the Bombay Rent Act relating to the business premises
The consequence would be that the tenant in business premises could use the premises for committing any offence or he could commit nuisance and annoyance to the adjoining or neighbouring occupiers and yet claim that he is not liable to be evicted on that grounds
Whereas the tenant of residential premises would not be able to commit such offence without the penalty of eviction
Such an interpretation would render the Section vulnerable to attack under Article 14 of the Constitution
We must avoid such construction
Section 131c in our opinion covers both residential as well as non residential premises
This takes us to the more difficult question whether the offence leading to conviction which exposes the tenant to the risk of ejectment should involve the user of premises or is to enough if the tenant was 156 convicted for an offence committed in the premises although the conviction is not of using the premises
Counsel for the tenant contends thatthe Section 131c means the former
But the acceptance of such construction would unreasonably narrow down the Section defeating the very object of the provision since there are very few crimes that can properly be so described and brought within its operation
We therefore reject the contention
But at the same time the expression convicted of using the premises cannot be given too liberal construction so as to cover every case or conviction of the tenant
In this regard we have a useful guidance from the decision in section Schneiders and Sons Ltd vs Abrahams 19251 KB 301 where a similar question arose for consideration
There the tenant was convicted of an offence under Section 33 of the Larceny Act 1916 of receiving at the demised premises the property of the landlord well knowing the same to have been stolen
The landlord brought an action to recover possession of the premises under Section 4 of the Rent  Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act 1923
Section 4 provided that no judgement for the recovery of possession of any house to which the Act applies shall be given unless the tenant  has been convicted of using the premises or allowing the premises to be used for an immoral or illegal purpose   Bankers LJ explaining the scope of the expression convicted of using the premises inter alia observed that the said expression cannot be given a strictly technical construction and that would exclude so many offences which would seem naturally to fall within the purview of the Section
He however emphasised that it is necessary to show that the tenant has taken advantage of his tenancy of the premises and of the opportunity they afford for committing the offence
He also dealt with the scope of the expression using the premises whether it requires something more than a single act of user or a continuous frequent or repeated use
On this aspect he said that it may be that the mere fact of a crime being committed on the premises would not constitute a user of the premises by the tenant for an illegal purpose for example if the tenant was convicted of an assault upon some one who happened to be on the premises in the occupation of the tenant and if that were the only evidence I doubt whether the tenant could be said to have been convicted of using the premises for an illegal purpose within the meaning of Section 4
But if the tenant used the premises as coiner s den or as a deposit for stolen goods a single instance of such user seems to me quite enough to satisfy the language of the statute
Scrutton LJ while agreeing with the above views has added that Section 4 was not intended to cover the conviction of a crime with which the premises have nothing to do beyond merely being the scene of its commission
Atkin LJ has also reiterated the above views
157 With due regard to these principles and giving the matter the best consideration
It seems to us that Section 131c was not intended to be a moral code of conduct for the tenant
For each and every offence committed at the premises the tenant cannot be exposed to the risk of eviction
The crime may be forced upon the tenant at the premises by third parties
There may be casual or incidental crimes
There may be technical offences connected with the trade or licence to trade
There may be crimes where use of the premises has nothing to do except being the scene of the offence
All such cases cannot satisfy the requirements of Section 131c
It is necessary as Bankers LJ has observed in the Schneiders case that the tenant must take advantage of his tenacy of the premises and of the opportunity they afford for committing the crime
Only such crimes could fall within the scope of Section 131c
However there need not be continuous or repeated user of the premises for committing such crimes
In the instant case the tenant used the premises for carrying out illegal sale of adulterated food along with his usual business in sweet meats and farsen
Indeed he has used the premises deliberately and taken advantage of his tenancy for committing the offences in the course of his trade
He cannot therefore legitimately contend that he is not entitled to be evicted under Section 131c
In this view of the matter we dismiss this petition but we make no order as to costs
VPR Petition dismissed


Summary:
When cloth control was introduced in Rewa State 25 cloth dealers of Budhar including the thirteen appellants formed themselves into an Association to collect the quota of cloth to be allotted to them and to sell it on profit
The Association functioned through a President and a pioneer worker they kept accounts and distributed profits
After cloth had been decontrolled and the work of the Association had come to an end the appellants filed a suit against the first respondent for rendition of accounts for a portion of the period that he had been President of the Association and for realisation of the amount found due with interest
The suit was decreed by the trial Court but was on appeal dismissed by the judicial Commissioner
In appeal before the Supreme Court the first respondent raised for the first time a preliminary objection that the suit was not maintainable as the Association consisting of more than 20 persons was not registered as required by section 42 Of the Rewa State Companies Act 1935 and that consequently the members of the Association had no remedy against each other in respect of its dealings and transactions
The appellants objected to the raising of the new plea and contended that nevertheless the suit was maintainable Held that the suit was not maintainable
In view of section 42 of the Act the Association was illegal
The reliefs claimed for rendition of accounts in enforcement of the illegal contract of partnership necessarily implied recognition by the Court that the Association existed of which accounts were to be taken
The Court could not assist the plaintiffs in obtaining their share of the profits made by the illegal Association
USein Po vs U Phyu Rang
540 not applicable
Held further that the new point ought to be allowed to be raised
The question was a pure question of law and did not require the investigation of any facts
The objection rested on the provisions of a public statute which no court could exclude from its consideration
Surajmull Nargoremull vs Triton Insurance Company Ltd 1924 LR 52 IA 126 Sri Sri Shiba Prasad Singh vs Maharaja Srish Chandra Nandi 1949 LR 76 IA 244 followed
The analogy of section 693a of the  did not apply an under that Act an unregistered firm was 97 770 not illegal
Besides the suit was not one for accounts of a dissolved firm but of an illegal Association which was in existence id at the relevant time