Case: Associated Hotels of India Limited Vs. R.N. Kapoor

7. 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 therefor initially at the rate of Rs. 800 and subsequently Rs. 700, per month.On 26-9-1950, R. N. Kapoor made an application under S. 7 (1) of the Delhi and Ajmer-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 appellants contention and allowed the application fixing the standard rent at Rs. 94 per month. On appeal by the appellant, the District Judge of Delhi 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.

Court's reasoning:
15. 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 Controllers 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 or 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 licenses to boarders to live in these rooms.16. I now pass on to the judgment of the High Court. Khosla J. who delivered the judgment, thought that a room in a 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 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 hotel, he 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 to Delhi, 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.17. 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 e.g., 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 I 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 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 licenses 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 licenses 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 roam 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.19. 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 came to the 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 Imperial 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.20. 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.