Case: Mrs. Dossibai N. B. Jeejeebhoy Vs. Khemchand Gorumal And Others

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.9. 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.10. But, says Mr. Bhat, look at sub-section (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 be 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 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 any 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 Section 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 cut down the ordinary and reasonable connotation of the words "let for residence" in Section 6.11. It is unnecessary for us to decide whether if there is no contract to the contrary, S. 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 much force in the argument which found favour with the Bombay High Court in Vinayak Gopal v. Laxman Kashinath, ILR (1956) Bom 827 : (AIR 1957 Bom 94 ), where the very question which is 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.12. 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 Gopals case, ILR (1956) Bom 827 : (AIR 1957 Bom 94 ), is, in our opinion, correct.13. 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 gets the right to remove the building. These considerations should not, in our opinion, affect the construction of the words "let for residence."14. 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 are therefore "premises" to which under S. 6 (1) of the Rent Act the provisions of Part II of the Act, apply.15. 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.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]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 against direct that in any of the said areas this Part shall re-apply to premises let 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-s. (1) (a) under which the State Government may direct that this Part shall apply to premises let for any otherThe lease mentions that the lessee will construct buildings suitable for residential, business industrial or office purposes. The plaintiffs 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 oris, in our opinion, no substance in this contention.6. It is quite clear that open land as it is can be used for residence and to there is no reason to think that open land was not intended to be included in "premises" when Section 6 speaks of premises being let forare unable to accept this argument. Land can be used for many purposes. It may be used for agriculture; for residence of human beings; for keeping cattle or other animals; for holding meetings; for 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 erected 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 the 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.8. It seems to us that when people speak ordinarily of land being let for business, they are only 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 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.9. 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 ofhowever, 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 cut down the ordinary and reasonable connotation of the words "let for residence" in Sectionmay say however that there is in our opinion much force in the argument which found favour with the Bombay High Court in Vinayak Gopal v. Laxman Kashinath, ILR (1956) Bom 827 : (AIR 1957 Bom 94 ), where the very question which is 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 thethink 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 Gopals case, ILR (1956) Bom 827 : (AIR 1957 Bom 94 ), is, in our opinion, correct.13. 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 gets the right to remove the building. These considerations should not, in our opinion, affect the construction of the words "let for residence."14. 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 are therefore "premises" to which under S. 6 (1) of the Rent Act the provisions of Part II of the Act, apply.15. 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.