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
section T Desai section 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 Rs558
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 1425
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 2225
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 section 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 section 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 s11 is in Part 11 of the Act and by section 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 section 11 she had to establish that the plot of land leased was premises within the meaning of section 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 section 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 section 5 sub cl
8 with section 61 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 section 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 section 11 for fixation of standard rent was therefore not maintainable The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
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 s11 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 s58of 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 section 58 of the Bombay Act on the date of letting and the application for fixation of standard rent was not maintainable