ivil Appeal No 38 of 1955
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the April 29 1953 of the Punjab High Court at Simla in Civil Revision No 761 of 1951 arising out of the Appellate Order dated October 6 1951 of the Court of District Judge Delhi in Misc
Civil Appeal No 248 of 1950 against the order of the Rent Controller Delhi dated the December 14 1950
47 370 C K Daphtary Solicitor General of India N C Chatterjee section N Andley and J B Dadachanji for the Appellant
The respondent did not appear
May 19
The following Judgments were delivered section K DAS J I have had the advantage and privilege of reading the judgments prepared by my learned brethren Sarkar J and Subba Rao J I agree with my learned brother Subba Rao J that the deed of May 1 1949 is a lease and not a licence
I have nothing useful to add to what he has said on this part of the case of the appellant
On the question of the true scope and effect of section 2b of the Delhi and Ajmer Merwara Rent Control Act 19 of 1947 hereinafter called the Rent Control Act I have reached the same conclusion as has been reached by my learned brother Sarkar J namely that the rooms or spaces let out by the  appellant to the respondent in the Imperial Hotel New Delhi were rooms in a hotel within the meaning of section 2b of the Rent Control Act therefore that Act did not apply and the respondent was not entitled to ask for the determination of fair rent under its provisions
The reasons for which I have reached that conclusion are somewhat different from those of my learned brother Sarkar J and it is therefore necessary that I should state the reasons in my own words
I read first section 2b of the Rent Control Act so far as it is relevant for our purpose section 2
In this Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context a         b premises  means any building or building which is or is intended to be let for use as a residence or for commercial any other purpose  but does not include a room in a dharamshala hotel or lodging house
 The question before us is what is the meaning of the expression a room in a hotel   Does it merely 371 mean a room which in a physical sense is within a building or part of a building used as a hotel or does it mean something more that is the room itself is not  only within a hotel in a physical sense but is let out to serve what are known as hotel purposes  If a strictly literal construction is adopted then a room in a hotel or dharamshala or lodging house means merely that the room is within and part of the building which is used as a hotel dharamshala or lodging house
There may be a case where the entire building is not used as a hotel dharamshala or lodging house but only a part of it so used
In that event the hotel lodging house or dharamshala will be that part of the building only which is used as such and any room therein will be a room in a hotel dharamshala or lodging house
Rooms outside that part but in the same building will not be rooms in a hotel dharamshala or lodging house
Take however a case where the room in question is within that part of the building which is used as a hotel dharamshala or lodging house but the room is let out for a purpose totally unconnected with that of the hotel lodging house or dharamshala as the case may be
Will the room still be a room in a hotel lodging house or dharamshala  That I take it is the question which we have to answer
The word hotel  is not defined in the Rent Control Act
It is defined in a cognate Act called the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 Bom
57 of 47
The definition there says that a hotel or lodging house means a building or a part of a building where lodging with or without board or other service is provided for a monetary consideration
I do not pause here to decide whether that definition should be adopted for the purpose of interpreting section 2b of the rent Control Act
It is sufficient to state that in its ordinary connotation the word hotel  means a house for entertaining strangers or travellers a place where lodging is furnished to transient guests as well as one where both lodging and food or other amenities are furnished
It is worthy of note that in a 2b of the Rent Control Act three different words are used hotel  dharamshals  or lodging house 
372 Obviously the three words do not mean the same establishment
In the cognate Act the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 however the definition clause gives the same meaning to the words hotel  and lodging house 
In my view section 2b of the Rent Control Act by using two different words distinguishes a hotel from a lodging house in some respects and indicates that the former is an establishment where not merely lodging but some other amenities are provided
It was however never questioned that the Imperial Hotel New Delhi is a hotel within the meaning of that word as it is commonly understood or even as it is defined in the cognate Act
Passing now from definitions which are apt not to be uniform the question is whether the partitioned spaces in the two cloak rooms let out to the respondent were rooms in that hotel
In a physical sense they were undoubtedly rooms in that hotel
I am prepared however to say that a strictly literal construction may not be justified and the word room  in the composite expression room in a hotel  must take colour from the context or the collocation of words in which it has been used in other words its meaning should be determined noscitur a sociis
The reason why I think so may be explained by an illustration
Suppose there is a big room inside a hotel in a physical sense it is a room in a hotel but let us suppose that it is let out to take an extreme example as a timber godown
Will it still be a room in a hotel though in a physical sense it is a room of the building which is used as a hotel I think it would be doing violence to the context if the expression room in a hotel  is interpreted in a strictly literal sense
On the view which I take a room in a hotel must fulfil two conditions 1 it must he part a hotel in the physical sense and 2 its user must be connected with the general purpose of the hotel of which it is a part
In the case under our consideration the spaces were let out for carrying on the business of a hair dresser
Such a business I consider to be one of the amenities which a modern hotel provides
The circumstance that people not resident in the hotel might also be served by the hair dresser does 373 not alter the position it is still an amenity for the residents in the hotel to have a hair dressing saloon within the hotel itself
A modern hotel provides many  facilities to its residents some hotels have billiard rooms let out to a private person where residents of the hotel as also non residents can play billiards on payment of a small fee other hotels provide post office and banking facilities by letting out rooms in the hotel for that purpose
All these amenties are connected with the hotel business and a barber s shop within the hotel premises is no exception
These are my reasons for holding that the rooms in question were rooms in a hotel within the meaning of section 2 b of the Rent Control Act 1947 and the respondent was not entitled to ask for fixation of fair or standard rent for the same
1 therefore agree with my learned brother Sarkar J that the appeal should be allowed but in the circumstances of the case there should be no order for costs
SARKAR J
The appellant is the proprietor of an hotel called the Imperial Hotel which is housed in a building on Queensway New Delhi
R N Kapoor the respondent named above who is now dead was the proprietor of a business carried on under the name of Madam Janes
Under an agreement with the appellant he came to occupy certain spaces in the Ladies  and Gents  cloak rooms of the Imperial Hotel paying therefore initially at the rate of Rs 800 and subsequently Rs 700 per month
On September 26 1950 R N Kapoor made an application under section 71 of the Delhi and Ajmere Merwara Rent Control Act 1947 19 of 1947 to the Rent Controller New Delhi alleging that he was a tenant of the spaces in the cloak rooms under the appellant and asking that standard rent might be fixed in respect of them
The appellant opposed the application contending for reasons to be mentioned later that the Act did not apply and no standard rent could be fixed
The Rent Controller however rejected the appellant s contention and allowed the application fixing the standard rent at Rs 94 per month
On 374 appeal by the appellant
theDistrict Judge of Delhi If set aside the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the application
R N Kapoor then moved the High Court in revision
The High Court set aside the order of the District Judge and restored that of the Rent Controller
Hence this appeal
We are informed that R N Kapoor died pending the present appeal and his legal representatives have been duly brought on the record
No one has however appeared to oppose the appeal and we have not had the advantage of the other side of the case placed before us
As earlier stated the appellant contends that the Act does not apply to the present case and the Rent Controller bad no jurisdiction to fix a standard rent
This contention was founded on two grounds which I shall presently state but before doing that I wish to refer to a few of the provisions of the Act as that would help to appreciate the appellant s contention
For the purpose of the present case it may be stated that the object of the Act is to control rents and evictions
Section 3 says that no tenant shall be liable to pay for occupation of any premises any sum in excess of the standard rent of these premises
Section 2d defines a tenant as a person who takes on rent any promises
Section 2b defines what is a premises within the meaning of the Act and this definition will have to be set out later because this case largely turns on that definition
Section 2c provides how standard rent in relation to any promises is to be determined
Section 7 1 states that if any dispute arises regarding the standard rent payable for any premises then it shall be determined by the Court
It is under this section that the application out of which this appeal arises was made the Court presumably being the Rent Controller
It is clear from these provisions of the Act that standard rent can be fixed only in relation to premises as defined in the Act and only a tenant that is the person to whom the premises have been let out can ask for the fixing of the standard rent
I now set out the definition of  premises  given in the Act so far as is material for our purposes 375  premises means any building or part of a building which is or is intended to be let separately   but does not  include a room in a dharamsala hotel or lodging house
 It is clear from this definition that the Act did not intend to control the rents payable by and evictions of persons who take on rent rooms in a dharamsala hotel or lodging house
The appellant contends that the spaces are not premises within the Act as they are rooms in a hotel and so no standard rent could be fixed in respect of them
Thus the first question that arises in this appeal is are the spaces rooms in an hotel within the definition  If they are rooms in an hotel clearly no standard rent could be fixed by the Rent Controller in respect of them
The Act does not define an hotel
That word has therefore to be understood in its ordinary sense
It is clear to me that the Imperial Hotel is an hotel however the word may be understood
It was never contended in these proceedings that the Imperial Hotel was not an  hotel  within the Act
Indeed the Imperial Hotel is one of the best known hotels of New Delhi
It also seems to me plain that the spaces are rooms  for this again has not been disputed in the Courts below and I have not found any reason to think that they are not rooms
The language used in the Act is  room in a hotel
The word  hotel  here must refer to a building for a room in an hotel must be a room in a building
That building no doubt must be an hotel that is to say a building in which the business of an hotel is carried on
The language used in the Act would include an room in the hotel building
That is its plain meaning
Unless there is good reason to do otherwise that meaning cannot be departed from
This is the view that the learned District Judge took
Is there then any reason why the words of the statute should be given a meaning other than their ordinary meaning The Rent Controller and the High 376 Court found several such reasons and these I will now consider
The learned Rent Controller took the view that a room in an hotel would be a room normally used for purposes of lodging and not any room in an hotel
He took this view because he thought that if for example there was a three storeyed building the ground floor of which was used for shops and the two upper floors for an hotel it could not have been intended to exclude the entire building from the operation of the Act and so the rooms on the ground floor would not have been rooms in an hotel
I am unable to appreciate how this illustration leads to the conclusion that a room in an hotel contemplated is a room normally used for lodging
The learned Rent Controller s reasoning is clearly fallacious
Because in a part of a building there is a hotel the entire building does not become a hotel
Under the definition a part of a building may be a premises and there is nothing to prevent a part only of a building being a hotel and the rest of it not being one
In the illustration imagined the ground floor is not a part of the hotel
The shoprooms in the ground floor cannot for this reason be rooms in a hotel at all
No question of these rooms being rooms in an hotel normally used for lodging arises
We see no reason why a room in an hotel within the Act must be a room normally used for lodging
The Act does not say so
It would be difficult to say which is a room normally used for lodging for the hotel owner may use a room in an hotel for any purpose of the hotel he likes
Again it would be an unusual hotel which lets out its lodging rooms the usual thing is to give licences to boarders to live in these rooms
I now pass on to the judgment of the High Court
Khosla J who delivered the judgment thought that a room in an hotel would be within the definition if it was let out to a person to whom board or other service was also given
It would seem that according to the learned Judge a room in an hotel within the Act is a room let out to a guest in an hotel for only a guest bargains for lodging and food and services in an hotel
But the section does not contain words 377 indicating that this is the meaning contemplated
In defining a room in an hotel it does not circumscribe the terms of the letting If this was the intention  the tenant would be entirely unprotected
Ex hypothesi he would be outside the protection of the Act
Though he would be for all practical purposes a boarder in an hotelthe would also be outside the protection of the cognate Act The Bombay Rents Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 Bom 57 of 1947 which has been made applicable toDelhi for that Act deals with lodging rates in an hotel which are entirely different from rents payable when hotel rooms are let out
A lodger in an hotel is a mere licensee and not a tenant for  there is involved in the term lodger that the man must lodge in the house of another  see Foa on Landlord and Tenant 8th Ed p 9
It could hardly have been intended to leave a person who is practically a boarder in an hotel in that situation
As I have earlier said it would be a most unusual hotel which lets out its rooms to a guest and the Act could not have been contemplating such a thing
Khosla J also said that the room in a hotel need not necessarily be a bed room but it must be so intimately connected with the hotel as to be a part and parcel of it that it must be a room which is an essential amenity provided by an hotel eg the dining room in an hotel
I am unable to agree
I do not appreciate why any room in an hotel is not intimately connected with it by which apparently is meant the business of the hotel
The business of the hotel is carried on in the whole building and therefore in every part of it
It would be difficult to say that one part of the building is more intimately connected with the hotel business than another
Nor do I see any reason why the Act should exempt from its protection a part which is intimately connected as it is said and which confess I do not understand and not a part not so intimately connected
I also do not understand what is meant by saying that a part of an hotel supplies essential amenities
The idea of essentiality of an amenity is so vague as to be unworkable
This 48 378 test would introduce great uncertainty in the working of the Act which could not have been intended
Nor do I see any reason why the Act should have left out of its protection a room which is an essential amenity of the hotel and not other rooms in it
Though it is not clear it may be that Khosla J was thinking that in order that a room in an hotel may be within the definition it must be let out for the purposes of the hotel
By this it is apparently meant that the room must be let out to supply board or give other services to the guests to do which are the purposes of an hotel
Again I find no justification for the view
There is nothing in the definition about the purposes of the letting out
Nor am I aware that hotel proprietors are in the habit of letting out portions of the hotel premises to others for supplying board and services to the guests in the hotels
It may be that an hotel proprietor grants licences to contractors to use parts of his premises to provide board and services to the guests in the hotel
This however is a different matter and with such licences we are not concerned
Again a proprietor of a different kind of business who lets out a portion of his business premises for the purposes of his business does not get an exemption from the operation of the Act
I am unable to see why the proprietor of an hotel business should have special consideration
The Act no doubt exempts a room in an hotel but it says nothing about the purposes for which the room must be let out to get the exemption
Further not only a room in an hotel is exempted by the definition but at the same time also a room in a dharamsala
If a room in an hotel within the Act is a room let out for the purposes of the hotel so must therefore be a room in a dharamsala It would however be difficult to see how a room in a dharamsala can be let out for the purposes of the dharamsala for a dharamsala does not as a rule supply food or give any services properly so called
Having given the matter my best consideration I have not been able to find any reason why the words used in the definition should not have their plain meaning given to them
I therefore come to the 379 conclusion that a room in an hotel within the definition is any room in a building in the whole of which the business of an hotel is run
So understood the definition would include the spaces in the cloak rooms of the Imperiol Hotel with which we are concerned
These spaces are in my view rooms in an hotel and excluded from the operation of the Act
The Rent Controller had no power to fix any standard rent in respect of them
The appellant also contended that Kapoor was not a tenant of the spaces but only a licensee and so again the Act did not apply
The question so raised depends on the construction of the written agreement under which Kapoor came to occupy the spaces and the circumstances of the case
I do not consider it necessary to express any opinion on this question for this appeal must in my view be allowed as the spaces are outside the Act being rooms in an hotel
In the result I would allow the appeal and dismiss the application for fixing standard rent
I do not propose to make any order for costs
SUBBA RAO J I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment of my learned brother Sarkar J and I regret my inability to agree with him
The facts material to the question raised are in a narrow compass
The appellants the Associated Hotels of India Ltd are the proprietors of Hotel Imperial New Delhi
The respondent R N Kapur since deceased was in occupation of two rooms described as ladies  and gentlemen s cloak rooms and carried on his business as a hair dresser
He secured possession of the said rooms under a deed dated May 1 1949 executed by him and the appellants
He got into possession of the said rooms agreeing to pay a sum of Rs 9600 a year ie Rs 800 per month but later on by mutual consent the annual payment was reduced to Rs 8400 ie Rs 700 per month
On September 26 1950 the respondent made an application to the Rent Controller Delhi alleging that the rent demanded was excessive and therefore a fair rent might be fixed under the Delhi and Ajmer Merwara 380 Rent Control Act 1947 19 of 1947 hereinafter called If the Act
The appellants appeared before the Rent Controller and contended that the Act had no application to the premises in question at they were premises in a hotel exempted under section 2 of the Act from its operation and also on the ground that under the aforesaid document the respondent was not a tenant but only a licensee
By order dated October 24 1950 the Rent Controller held that the exemption under section 2 of the Act related only to residential rooms in a hotel and therefore the Act applied to the premises in question
On appeal the District Judge Delhi came to a contrary conclusion he was of the view that the rooms in question were rooms in a hotel within the meaning of section 2 of the Act and therefore the Act had no application to the present case
Further on a construction of the said document he held that the appellants only permitted the respondent to use the said two rooms in the hotel and therefore the transaction between the parties was not a lease but a licence
On the basis of the aforesaid two findings he came to the conclusion that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to fix a fair rent for the premises
The respondent preferred a revision against the said order of the District Judge to the High Court of Punjab at Simla and Khosla J held that the said premises were not rooms in a hotel within the meaning of section 2 of the Act and that the document executed between the parties created a lease and not a licence
On those findings he set aside the decree of the learned District Judge and restored the order of the Rent Controller
The present appeal was filed in this Court by special leave granted to the appellants on January 18 1954
The learned Solicitor General and Mr Chatterjee who followed him contended that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to fix a fair rent under the Act in regard to the said premises for the following reasons 1 The document dated May 1 1949 created a relationship of licensor and licensee between the parties and not that of lessor and lessee as held by the High Court and 2 the said rooms were rooms in a hotel 381 within the meaning of section 2 of the Act and therefore they were exempted from the operation
of the Act
Unfortunately the legal representative of the respondent was ex parte and we did not have the advantage of the opposite view being presented to us
But we have before us the considered judgment of the High Court which has brought out all the salient points in favour of the respondent The first question turns upon the true construction of the document dated May 1 1949 whereunder the respondent was put in possession of the said rooms
As the argument turns upon the terms of the said document it will be convenient to read the relevant portions thereof
The document is described as a deed of licence and the parties are described as licensor and licensee
The preamble to the document runs thus   Whereas the Licensee approached the Licensor through their constituted Attorney to permit the Licensee to allow the use and occupation of space allotted in the Ladies and Gents Cloak Rooms at the Hotel Imperial New Delhi for the consideration and on terms and conditions as follows  The following are its terms and conditions 1
In pursuance of the said agreement the Licensor hereby grants to the Licensee Leave and License to use and occupy the said premises to carry on their business of Hair Dressers from 1st May 1949 to 30th April 1950
That the charges of such use and occupation shall be Rs 9600 a year payable in four quarterly installments ie 1st immediately on signing the contract 2nd on the 1st of August 1949 3rd on the 1st November 1949 and the 4th on the 1st February 1950 whether the Licensee occupy the premises and carry on the business or not
That in the first instance the Licensor shall allow to the Licensee leave and license to use and occupy the said premises for a period of one year only
That the licensee shall have the opportunity of further extension of the period of license after the expiry of one year at the option of the licensor on 382 the same terms and conditions but in any case the licensee shall intimate their desire for an extension at least three months prior to the expiry of one year from the date of the execution of this DEED
The licensee shall use the premises as at present fitted and keep the same in good condition
The licensor shall not supply any fitting or fixture more then what exists in the premises for the present
The licensee will have their power and light meters and will pay for electric charges
That the licensee shall not make any alterations in the premises without the prior consent in writing from the licensor
That should the licensee fail to pay the agreed fee to the licensor from the date an d in the manner as agreed the licensor shall be at liberty to terminate this DEED without any notice and without payment of any compensation and shall be entitled to charge interest at 12 per annum on the amount remaining unpaid
That in case the licensee for reasons beyond their control are forced to close their business in Delhi the licensor agrees that during the remaining period the license shall be transferred to any person with the consent and approval of the licensor subject to charges so obtained not exceeding the monthly charge of Rs 800
 The document no doubt uses phraseology appropriate to a licence
But it is the substance of the agreement that matters and not the form for otherwise clever drafting can camouflage the real intention of the parties
What is the substance of this document  Two rooms at the Hotel Imperial were put in possession of the respondent for the purpose of carrying on his business as hair dresser from May 1 1949
The term of the document was in the first instance for one year but it might be renewed
The amount payable for the use and occupation was fixed in a sum of Rs 9600 per annum payable in four instalments
The respondent was to keep the premises in good condition He should 383 pay for power and electricity
He should not make alterations in the premises without the consent of the appellants
If he did not pay the prescribed amount in the manner agreed to he could be evicted therefrom without notice and he would also be liable to pay compensation with interest
He could transfer his interest in the document with the consent of the appellants
The respondent agreed to pay the amount prescribed whether he carried on the business in the premises or not
Shortly stated under the document the respondent was given possession of the two rooms for carrying on his private business on condition that he should pay the fixed amount to the appellants irrespective of the fact whether he carried on his business in the premises or not
There is a marked distinction between a lease and a licence
Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act defines a lease of immoveable property as a transfer of a right to enjoy such property made for a certain time in consideration for a price paid or promised
Under section 108 of the said Act the lessee is entitled to be put in possession of the property
A lease is there  fore a transfer of an interest in land
The interest transferred is called the leasehold interest
The lessor parts with his right to enjoy the property during the term of the lease and it follows from it that the lessee gets that right to the exclusion of the lessor
Whereas section 52 of the Indian Easements Act defines a licence thus  Where one person grants to another or to a definite number of other persons a right to do or continue to do in or upon the immoveable property of the grantor something which would in the absence of such right be unlawful and such right does not amount to an easement or an interest in the property the right is called a licence
 Under the aforesaid section if a document gives only a right to use the property in a particular way or under certain terms while it remains in possession and control of the owner thereof it will be a licence
The legal possession therefore continues to be with the owner of the property but the licensee is permitted to 384 make use of the premises for a particular purpose 
But for the permission his occupation would be unlawful
It does not create in his favour any estate or interest n the property
There is therefore cleat distinction between the two concepts
The dividing line is clear though sometimes it becomes very thin or even blurred
At one time it was thought that the test of exclusive possession was infalliable and if a person was given exclusive possession of a premises it would conclusively establish that he was a lessee
But there was a change and the recent trend of judicial opinion is reflected in Errington vs Errington 1 wherein Lord Denning reviewing the case law on the subject summarizes the result of his discussion thus at p 155 The result of all these cases is that although a person who is let into exclusive possession is prima facie to be considered to be tenant nevertheless he will not be held to be so if the circumstances negative any intention to create a tenancy
 The Court of Appeal again in Cobb vs Lane 2 considered the legal position and laid down that the intention of the parties was the real test for ascertaining the character of a document
At p 1201 Somervell L J stated     the solution that would seem to have been found is as one would expect that it must depend on the intention of the parties
 Denning L J said much to the same effect at p 1202 The question in all these cases is one of intention Did the circumstances and the conduct of the parties show that all that was intended was that the occupier should have a personal privilege with no interest in the land  The following propositions may therefore be taken as well established 1 To ascertain whether a document creates a licence or lease the substance of the document must be preferred to the form  2 the real test is the intention of the parties whether they intended to create a lease or a licence 3 if the document creates an interest in the property it is a lease 1  2 385 but if it only permits another to make use of the property of which the legal possession continues with the owner it is a licence and 4 if under the document a party gets exclusive possession of the property prima facie he is considered to be a tenant but circumstances may be established which negative the intention to create a lease
Judged by the said tests it is not possible to hold that the document is one of licence
Certainly it does not confer only a bare personal privilege on the respondent to make use of the rooms
It puts him in exclusive possession of them untrammelled by the control and free from the directions of the appellants
The covenants are those that are usually found or expected to be included in a lease deed
The right of the respondent to transfer his interest under the document although with the consent of the appellants is destructive of any theory of licence
The solitary circumstance that the rooms let out in the present case are situated in a building wherein a hotel is run cannot make any difference in the character of the holding
The intention of the parties is clearly manifest and the clever phraseology used or the ingenuity of the document writer hardly conceals the real intent
I therefore hold that under the document there was transfer of a right to enjoy the two rooms and therefore it created a tenancy in favour of the respondent
The next ground turns upon the construction of the provisions of section 2 of the Act
Section 2b defines the term  premises and the material portion of it is as follows   Premises means any building or part of a building which is or is intended to be let separately
               but does not include a room in a dharmashala hotel or lodging house
 What is the construction of the words  a room in a hotel   The object of the Act as disclosed in the preamble is  to provide for the control of rents and evictions and for the lease to Government of premises upon their becoming vacant in certain areas in the 49 386 Provinces of Delhi and Ajmer Merwara
The Act was therefore passed to control exorbitant rents of buildings prevailing in the said States
But section 2 exempts a room in a hotel from the operation of the Act
The reason for the exemption may be to encourage running of hotels in the cities or it may be for other reasons
Whatever may be the object of the Act the scope of the exemption cannot be enlarged so as to limit the operation of the Act
The exemption from the Act is only in respect of a room in a hotel
The collocation of the words brings out the characteristics of the exempted room
The room is part of a hotel
It partakes its character and does not cease to be one after it is let out
It is therefore necessary to ascertain the meaning of the word hotel
The word  hotel  is not defined in the Act
A hotel in common parlance means a place where a proprietor makes it his business to furnish food or lodging or both to travellers or other persons
A building cannot be run as a hotel unless services necessary for the comfortable stay of lodgers and boarders are maintained
Services so maintained
vary with the standard of the hotel and the class of persons to which it caters but the amenities must have relation to the hotel business
Provisions for heating or lighting supply of hot water sanitary arrangements sleeping facilities and such others are some of the amenities a hotel offers to its constituents
But every amenity however remote and unconnected with the business of a hotel cannot be described as service in a hotel
The idea of a hotel can be better clarified by illustration than by definition and by giving examples of what is a room in a hotel and also what is not a room in a hotel
1 A owns a building in a part whereof he runs a hotel but leases out a room to B in the part of the building not used as hotel 2 A runs a hotel in the entire building but lets out a room to B for a purpose unconnected with the hotel business 3 A runs a hotel in the entire building and lets out a room to B for carrying on his business different from that of a hotel though incidentally the inmates of the hotel take advantage of it because of its proximity 4 A lets out a room in such a building 387 to another with an express condition that he should cater only to the needs of the inmates of the hotel and 5 A lets out a room in a hotel to a lodger who can command all the services and amenities of a hotel
In the first illustration the room has never been a part of a hotel though it is part of a building where a hotel is run
In the second though a room was once part of a hotel it ceased to be one for it has been let out for a non hotel purpose
In the fifth it is let out as part of a hotel and therefore it is definitely a room in a hotel
In the fourth the room may still continue as part of the hotel as it is let out to provide an amenity or service connected with the hotel
But to extend the scope of the words to the third illustration is to obliterate the distinction between a room in a hotel and a room in any other building
If a room in a building which is not a hotel but situated near a hotel is let out to a tenant to carry on his business of a hair dresser it is not exempted from the operation of the Act
But if the argument of the appellants be accepted if a similar room in a building wherein a hotel is situated is let out for a similar purpose it would be exempted
In either case the tenant is put in exclusive possession of the room and he is entitled to carry on his business without any reference to the activities of the hotel
Can it be said that there is any reasonable nexus between the business of the tenant and that of the hotel
The only thing that can be said is that a lodger in a hotel building can step into the saloon to have a shave or haircut
So too he can do so in the case of a saloon in the neighbouring house
The tenant is not bound by the contract to give any preferential treatment to the lodger
He may take his turn along with others and when he is served he is served not in his capacity as a lodger but as one of the general customers
What is more under the document the tenant is not even bound to carry on the business of a hair dresser
His only liability is to pay the stipulated amount to the landlord
The room therefore for the purpose of the Act ceases to be a part of the hotel and becomes a place of business of the respondent
As the rooms in question were not let 388 out as part of a hotel or for hotel purposes I must hold that they are  not rooms in a hotel within the meaning of section 2 of the Act
In this view the appellants are not exempted from the operation of the Act
The judgment of the High Court is correct
The appeal fails and is dismissed
ORDER In accordance with the opinion of the majority the appeal is allowed
No order as to costs


Summary:
The respondent Municipality issued a notice under sub section
1 Of section 153A of the Bombay District Municipal Act 1901 as adapted and applied to the State of Saurashtra and as amended by Act XI Of 1955 calling upon the appellant to show cause why it should not be directed to discharge the effluent Of it s chemical works in the manner specified in the notice
On the appellant objecting to the notice and the requisition contained therein a Special Officer was appointed by the Government under sub section
3 of that section to hold an enquiry in the matter
The Special Officer treated some of the issues raised as preliminary issues of law and held that the question whether the discharge of the effluent polluted the water and adversely affected the fertility of the soil was a matter for the subjective satisfaction of the Municipality and binding on him and was as such beyond the scope of his enquiry
The question for determination in this appeal was whether the Special Officer was right in the view he took of section 153A3 Of the Act and in restricting the scope of the enquiry in the way he did
389 Held that Special Officer took a wrong view of his jurisdiction under section 153A3 Of the Act and was in error in restricting the scope of the enquiry
There could be no doubt on a proper appreciation of the scheme laid down by the provision of section 153A of the Act correctly construed that while the subjective satisfaction of the Municipality as to the existence of the nuisance could not be questioned at the initial stage when it sought to put the machinery provided by sub section
1 in motion or under sub section
2 where such existence was admitted the situation contemplated by sub section
3 where the notice and the requisition were wholly disputed and no mere modification of the requisition sought was entirely different
The language of sub section
3 and particularly the words  to hold an enquiry into the matter  used by it clearly indicated that where there was such a contest it was the duty of the Special Officer to enquire into the existence of the alleged nuisance and come to a finding of his own
The status of the Special Official and powers conferred on him by the relevant provisions of the Act clearly indicated that sub section
3 was intended by the Legislature to be a protection against any arbitrary exercise of its power by the Municipality
It was of the utmost importance that such proceedings should in the interest of the community be disposed of with all possible expedition
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  Civil Appeal No 173 of 1959
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 16 1958 of the Special Officer appointed under section 1533 of the Bombay District Municipal Act 1901 Bombay Act No 1 1 1 of 1901 as applied to Saurashtra Zalawad Division Surendarnagar