Appeals Nos 503 to 506 of 1958
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and orders dated August 4 1957 of the Bombay High Court in Letters patent Appeals Nos
29 to 32 of 1957
J C Bhatt R P Bhatt R A Gagrat and G Gopalakrishnan for the appellants
N C Chatterjee Madhowdas C Bhagat and Radhey Lal Agarwal for the respondents in C A No 503 of 58
Madhowdas C Bhagat and Radhey Lal Agarwal for the respondents in C As
504 to 506 of 1958
September 29
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA J
When a lessee takes lease of open land for the purpose of constructing on it buildings intended to be used for residence or for business is this letting for residence or letting for business That is the short question which arises for decision in these four appeals
The appellant brought these four suits in the City Civil Courts Bombay for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of the premises mentioned in the plaint of these several suits
It is clear under the law that the City Civil Court Bombay would have no jurisdiction to try these suits if the provisions of Part II of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 Bom
57 of 1947 which later in this judgment we shall refer to as the Rent Act applied to the permises in suits
For this reason the plaintiff stated in the plaint itself that this Rent Act did not apply to the demised premises
The defendant in each case pleaded on 930 the contrary that the Rent Act applied and so the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suits
The first issue framed in each of these suits therefore was whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit
The learned Judge held that Part II of the Rent Act applied to the premises in each of these suits and consequently only the special court specified in section 28 of the Rent Act had jurisdiction to entertain the suits and the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction
Accordingly he ordered the plaint in each of the four suits to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court
The plaintiff appealed to the High Court of Bombay but all the four appeals were summarily dismissed
The Letters Patent appeals preferred by the plaintiff from the decision of the Single Judge were also dismissed summarily
These appeals have been preferred against that decision of the Bombay High Court in Letters Patent Appeals on special leave obtained from this Court
Under a 5 sub section 8 of the Rent Act unless there is anything repugnant in the context premises means among other things any land not being used for agricultural purposes
 It is undisputed in these cases that the land in respect of which the suits were brought was not being used for agricultural purposes and so comes within the definition of  Premises in section 5
The provisions of Part If of the Act do not however apply to all premises which fall within this definition
Section 6 with which this Part II opens provides in its first sub section that this part shall apply to premises let for residence education business trade or storage in areas specified in Sch
It is subject to a proviso that the State Government may direct that in any of the said areas this Part shall cease to apply to premises let for any of the said purposes with a further proviso that the State Government may again direct that in any of the said areas this Part shall re apply to premises let 931 for such of the aforesaid purposes
As there has been no notification under these provisos affecting the premises in suit we are not concerned with them nor are we concerned with sub section 1A under Which the State Government may direct that this Part shall apply to premises let for any other purposes
The four premises in respect of which the four suits were brought are all within the city of Bombay and thus in the area specified in Schedule of the Act
In each of these cases we have therefore to examine the purpose of the lease and to decide whether it was let for residence or for education business trade or storage
The lease men tions that the leasee will construct buildings suitable for residential business industrial or office purposes
The plaintiff s case is that as open land is not intended to be used as it is for residence or business but for construction of buildings for residence or business the land is not being let for residence or business
The defendant in each case contends that the letting was for residence or business as that was the ultimate purpose of taking the lease
Mr Bhatt addressed his arguments to the question whether the letting could be said to be for residence and did not separately address us on the question of letting for business as obviously if the land could not be said to be let for residence it could not also be said to be let for business
The extreme proportion which Mr Bhatt raised first of all on behalf of the appellant is that open land can never be let for residence and so
when a 6 speaks of premises being let for residence land as defined in sub section 8 a of section 5 is outside the word premises
There is in our opinion no substance in this contention
It is quite clear that open land as it is can be used for residence and so there is no reason to think that open land was not intended to be included in premises when a 6 speaks of premises being let for residence
932 The more substantial question for consideration is whether when open land is being leased not to be used for residence in its condition of open land but to be used for the purpose of residence after constructing buildings thereon the letting of the open land can reasonably be called to be letting for residence
Mr Bhatt contends that as what is to be considered is whether the letting of the open land is for residence the land cannot be said to be for residence if not the open land but something constructed on the open land is to be used for residence
In such a case says Mr Bhatt the land is let for construction of a building and not for residence
We are unable to accept this argument
Land can be used for many purposes
It maybe used for agriculture for residence of human beings for keeping cattle or other animals for holding meetings  or carrying on business or trade for storage of goods for supply of water by excavating tanks and many other purposes
Many of these purposes can be achieved on the open land without the construction of any buildings
But many of them can be better achieved if some kind of structure is created on the open land
It seems reasonable to us to think that when the Bombay Legislature took particular care to include open land not being used for agricultural purposes within the word premises and then went on in the very next section to speak of premises being let for several specified purposes it was thinking of the purposes to which the land will be used irrespective of whether the purpose was intended to be achieved with or without construction of a structure
The intention in mentioning only some purposes viz residence education business trade or storage in section 6 was to exclude land let for purposes like keeping of cattle except in the way of business or trade and numerous other purposes to which the land may be put from the benefit of part II of the Act
It seems to us that when people speak ordinarily of land being let for business they are only 933 thinking that the ultimate purpose behind the letting is that business will be carried on and they are not thinking whether the business will be carried on on the land in its present state or by the construction of temporary sheds or by putting up permanent buildings
Similarly when a man says that he will take lease of a plot of land for storage of his goods what he has in mind is that by taking lease of the land he will achieve the object of storing goods irrespective of whether for such storage he will have to put up a structure or not
In the same way
 we think that when land has been let for the purpose of constructing buildings for residence people will say that it is being let for residence just as they will say that the land has been let for residence if the lessee intends to use it as caravan site so that the people may live on the open land in caravans
In our opinion the words  let for residence education business trade or storage are wide enough to include a letting for the achievement of these purposes with construction of buildings as also without construction of buildings
But says Mr Bhatt look at sub a
i of section 15 of the Rent Act which is in this very part II and that will show that the Legislature could not have intended land which is let for the construction of buildings for residence to I within the phrase  premises let for residence
Section 15 of the Act after its amendment by Bombay Act 49 of 1959 reads thus Notwithstanding anything contained in any law but subject to any contract to the contrary it shall not be lawful after the coming into operation of this Act for any tenant to sublet the whole or any part of the premises let to him or to assign or transfer in any other manner his interest therein
 It may be mentioned that as the section originally stood the words but subject to any contract to the contrary were not there
When the amending Act 934 of 1959 introduced these words the amendment further provided that these words shall be deemed always to have been there
Even after the amendment it remains unlawful where there is no contract to the contrary for any tenant of premises to sublet the whole or a by part thereof Mr Bhatts argument is that in every case where there is no such contract to the contrary the difficulty that will result if land let for construction of residential buildings be held to be premises let for residence within the meaning of a 6
is that after the building is constructed the lessee will not be able to sublet the building or any portion of it so that in many cases where the real purpose of taking the land is for the construction of building for letting out the same that purpose will be defeated
This argument as regards the difficulty in the matter of letting out the building constructed on the land on which lease has been taken was more plausible when the saving phrase but subject to any contract to the contrary did not form part of the section
Now however the cases in which such difficulty will arise if at all would be few and far between for it is reasonable to expect that when taking lease of land for the construction of building intended to be let out to others for residence the lessee of the land would take care to include in the contract of lease a term permitting him to let out the building
Assuming that there may be cases where the contract of lease does not contain any such term and assuming further that it will not be lawful for the lessee of the land to let out the building constructed by him the probability of such difficulty in some cases can be no reason to out down the ordinary and reasonable connotation of the words  let for residence in a 6
It is unnecessary for us to decide whether if there is no contract to the contrary section 15 will really stand in the way of a lessee of the land letting out buildings constructed by him on such land
We may say however that there is in our opinion 935 much force in the argument which found favour with the Bombay High Court in Vinayak Goapl vs Laxman Kashinath 1 where the very question whichis now before us arose for decision that the bar of section 15 will operate only in the way of letting out the land of which lease has been taken but will not stand in the way of letting the building constructed on the land
In that case the Bombay High Court held that where land is leased for the purpose of construction of buildings for residence the land is let for residence within the meaning of section 6 of the Rent Act
Mr Bhatt devoted a considerable part of his argument to persuade us that some of the reasons given in that judgment do not stand scrutiny
We think it unnecessary however to examine whether all the reasons given in the judgment are correct
For as already indicated the words  let for residence on a proper construction would cover the case of open land being let for construction of residential buildings and so the conclusion reached by the Bombay High Court in Vinayak Gopal s Case1 is in our opinion correct
It is unnecessary for us also to consider for the purpose of the present appeals as to what may happen to the sub lessee if and when on the terms of a particular lease the building ultimately vests in the owner of the land nor as to what may happen if and when on the terms of a particular lease the lessee who has constructed the building gets the right to remove the building
These considerations should not in our opinion affect the construction of the words let for residence
Turning now to the facts of the present case we find that in each of these cases the lease was taken with a view to construct buildings thereon for residential business industrial or office purposes
The premises let am therefore premises to which 1 I L R 936 under section 61 of the Rent Act the provision of part II of the Act apply
The Trial Court and the High Court were therefore right in holding that the City Civil Court Bombay had no jurisdiction to try the suits
The appeals are accordingly dismissed with costs
There will be one set of hearing fee for the four appeals
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant took lease of an open land for construction of buildings suitable for residential business industrial or office purposes
The appellant brought suits in the City Civil court Bombay for the recovery of arrears of rent in respect of premises built on the said open land all within the city of Bombay thus in the area specified in Schedule I of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947
The appellant stated in the Plaint itself that the Bombay Rent Control Act 1947 did not apply to the dcmiscd premises
The defendants pleaded that the Rent Act applied and the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit
The trial judge held that part II of the Rent Act applied to the premises and consequently only the special courts specified in section 28 of the Rent Act had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and ordered the plaints in the suits to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court
The Bombay High Court summarily dismissed the appeals from the said orders
The point at issue for decision was whether when a lessee takes lease of open land for the purpose of constructing on it buildings intended to be used for residence or for business this amounts to Letting for residence or letting for business
The appellants  contention was that as open land not intended to be used as it is for residence or business but for construction of buildings for residence or business was taken on lease the land was not being let for residence or business
Held that the words let for residence education business or storage in s6 of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 are wide enough to include a letting for the achievment of these purposes by construction of buildings as also without construction of buildings
Held further that on the facts of the present case in each of these cages the lease was taken with a view to construct buildings thereon for residential business industrial or office purposes and the land let was therefore premises  to 929 which under section 61 of the Bombay Rent Act the provisions of Part II of the Act applied
Vinayak Gopal v Laxman Kashinath I L R  approved