Case ID: 3969

Judgment:
Civil Appeal No. 2047 of 1969. A Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 25 6 1969 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 346/67. Y. section Chitaley	 section K. Mehta	 P. N. Puri and E. M. Sarul Anam for the Appellant. A. T. M. Sampath and P. N. Ramalingam for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHlNNAPPA REDDY	 J. The short question for consideration in this appeal is whether the practice of the legal profession is 'business ' within the meaning of Section 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease	 Rent and Eviction) Control Act	 1960. The question arises this way. The respondent	 an Advocate filed an application before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the appellant	 his tenant	 from the premises in question on the ground that he required the premises for the purpose of carrying on his profession as an Advocate. The application was contested by the appellant who was carrying on the business of manufacturing art jewellery in the premises. We are not concerned in this appeal with the several defences which were raised by the appellant. Nor are we concerned with the vicissitudes which the case underwent. For the purposes of this appeal it is sufficient to say that the final Court of fact	 namely the Chief Judge of the Court of Small causes	 Hyderabad	 found that the respondent bona fide required the premises for the purpose of carrying on his profession as an Advocate and that the tenancy was not such as could be split up. The Appellate authorities passed an order of eviction against the appellant. Before the High Court	 in revision	 it was contended by the appellant that the practice of the profession of an Advocate was not business within the meaning of Section 10(3) (a) (iii) and	 therefore	 the respondent could not seek the eviction of the appellant on the ground that he required the premises for the purpose of carrying on his profession as an Advocate. It was contended that Section 10(3) (a) (iii) used the expression 'business ' only and not the expression 'profession. ' The contention was negatived by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh consisting of Gopalrao Ekbote and Ramachandra Rao	 JJ. The tenant has appealed by special leave to this Court. Dr. Chitaley learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was a clear distinction between 'business ' and 'profession ' and that the practice of a liberal profession like that of an Advocate or a Doctor which 14 had nothing commercial about it was not business within the meaning of Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease	 Rent and Eviction) control Act 1960. He argued that though the Andhra Pradesh Act broadly classified buildings into residential and non residential buildings	 the landlord of a non residential building could not seek to evict his tenant on the ground of his requirement unless it was for the purpose of carrying on a business. According to the learned Counsel this indicated that the expression business was to be given a narrow meaning and was to be confined to activities of a commercial nature. The learned Counsel also urged that the Court should favour a construction which would be beneficient to the tenant. Dr. Chitaley relied on M. P. Sethurama Menon vs Thaiparambath Kunhukutty Amma 's daughter	 Meenakshi Amma and Ors. (1) Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. vs R. Rajappa & Ors. (2) and Stuchbery & Ors. vs General Accident Fire and Life Insurance Corporation Ltd.(3) The expression business has not been defined in the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease	 Rent and Eviction) Control Act	 1960. It is a common expression which is sometimes used by itself and sometimes in a collocation of words as in "business	 trade or profession". It is a word of large and wide import		 capable of a variety of meanings. It is needless to refer to the meanings given to that term in the various Dictionaries except to say that everyone of them notices a large number of meanings of the word. In a broad sense it is taken to mean everything that occupies the time attention and labour of men for the purpose of livlihood or profit '. In a narrow sense it is confined to commercial activity. It is obvious that the meaning of the word must be gleaned from the context in which it is used. Reference to the provisions of the Constitution or other statutes where! the expression is used cannot be of any assistance in determining its meaning in Section 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease	 Rent and Eviction) Control Act	 1960. It is not a sound principle of construction tn interpret expressions used in one Act with reference to their use in another Act; more so	 if the two Acts in which the same word is used are not cognate Acts. Neither the meaning	 nor the definition of the term in one statute affords a guide to the construction of the same term in another statute and the sense in which the term has been understood in the several statutes does not necessarily throw any light on the manner in which the term should be understood generally. On the other hand it is a (1) A.I.R. 1967 Kerala 88. (2) ; (3) [1949] 2 K. B. D. 256. 15 sound	 and	 indeed	 a well known principle of construction that meaning of words and expressions used in an Act must take their colour from the content in which they appear. Dr. Chitaley very frankly and fairly conceded as much. Now the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease	 Rent and Eviction) Control Act	 1960	 is an 'Act to consolidate	 and amend the law relating to the regulation of leasing of buildings	 the control of rent thereof an(l the prevention of unreasonable eviction of tenants therefrom in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It applies to the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and to all municipalities in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The provisions of the Act	 however	 do not apply to buildings owned by the Government and to buildings constructed on or after 26th August	 1957. Building is broadly defined as meaning any house or hut or a part of a house or hut	 let or to be let separately for residential or nonresidential purposes. Landlord is defined as the owner of a building	 including a person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building	 on his own account or on behalf of another person etc. Tenant is defined as a person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building. Section 4 provides for the determination of a fair rent of a building on the application of the tenant or landlord. Section 10(1) provides that a tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of Sections 10	 12 and 13. Section 10(2) mentions several grounds on which a landlord may seek to evict a tenant. The grounds are default of payment of rent	 sub letting of premises	 used for a purpose other than that for which it was leased	 commission of acts of waste	 conduct amounting to nuisance to the occupiers of the other portions in the same building	 securing of alternative accommodation by the tenant and denial of the title of the landlord. The grounds mentioned in Section 10(2) apply both to residential and non residential buildings. Section 10(3) (a) (i) provides for the eviction of a tenant where the landlord of a residential building requires it for his own occupation. Section 10(3)(a)(iii) provides for the eviction of a tenant from a non residential building where "the landlord is not occupying a non residential building in a city town or village concerned which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled whether under the Act or otherwise (a) for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on on the date of the application	 or (b) for the purpose of a business which in the opinion of the Controller	 the landlord bona fide proposes to commence". Section 12 and 13 contain special provisions relating to recovery of buildings by landlord for the purpose of effecting repairs	 alterations or additions or for reconstruction. The scheme of the Act is to prevent unreasonable eviction of 16 tenants by landlords and to provide for eviction on specified grounds. The Act is of general application and its protection not confined to any classes of tenants nor is the right to evict under the Act limited to any class of landlords. There is no reason why a landlord who is a member of the legal or medical professions and who requires the premises for carrying on the practice of his profession should be wholly debarred from obtaining possession of the premises. It is impossible to discover any reason for so making a discrimination against the liberal professions. But	 that would be the result if the expression 'business ' is given a narrow meaning which the appellant wants us to give to that expression. It would indeed be anamolous to hold that all the provisions of the Act including Section 4 which provides for the determination of fair rent and Section 10(1) which bars the eviction of tenants apply to nonresidential buildings owned by an Advocate but not Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) only. In our view the expression business occurring in Section 10(3)(a)(iii) is used in a wide sense so as to include the practice of the profession of an Advocate. The Kerala High Court in M.P. Sethurama Menon vs Meenakshi Amma & Ors. 	 (supra) construed the expression 'trade or business ' as connoting commercial activity and as not including the practice of the legal profession. The learned Judges referred to Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution	 Section 49 of the 	 the Madras Shops and Establishments Act	 1947 and drew a distinction between the words 'business ' and 'profession. ' As mentioned by us earlier	 we do not think that it is right to ascribe to the word 'business ' occurring in the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease	 Rent and Eviction) Control Act	 1960	 the same meaning that the word may have when it occurs in other statutory provisions. The word must be interpreted in the context of the statute in which it occurs and not in the context of other statutes or in a manner alien to the context of the statute concerned. In Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. vs R. Rajappa Ors.	 (supra) Chandrachud	 J. (as he then was) observed ". I find myself unable to accept the broad formulation that a Solicitor 's establishment cannot be an industry. A Solicitor	 undoubtedly	 does not carry on trade or business when he acts for his client or advises him or pleads for him	 if and when pleading is permissible to him. He pursues a profession which is variously and justifiably described as learned	 liberal or noble. " The observations of the Learned Judge were made in the context of the question whether a Solicitor 's establishment would fall within the definition of 'industry ' under the 17 Industrial Disputes Act. It would be most unwise to apply this A observation to determine whether the practice of the liberal professions is within the meaning of the expression 'business ' in Rent Control legislation. In Stuchbery & Ors. vs General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd.	 (supra) it was observed that the carrying on of a Solicitor 's business was the carrying on of a profession and was not the carrying on of a trade or business within the meaning of that phrase in the Landlord and Tenant Act	 1927. The observation was made in the context of that Act which made a distinction between 'trade or business ' and 'profession '. In fact sub section 3(a) of Section 17 of the Act expressly said: "for the purposes of this Section premises shall not be deemed to be premises used for carrying on there at a trade or business by reason of their being used for the purpose of carrying on there at any profession". The question in that case was about the right to compensation for the goodwill attached to the premises where the "business" or "profession" was being carried on. We do not think 1 that the case is of any help to the appellant. We may refer here to the decision of Danckwerts	 J.	 in Re Williams ' Will Trusts	 Chartered Bank of India	 Australia and China and Another vs Williams and Others.(1) where the question was whether the bequest to a son for the purpose of starting him in 'business ' was affective to start the son in medical practice. The learned Judge held that it did	 observing that the word 'business ' was capable of including the practice of a profession and that it plainly included the profession of a Doctor. We may refer to just one more case i.e. Taramal vs Laxman Sewak Surey Ors(2) where this very question whether the practice of law was a 'business ' within the meaning of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act came for consideration before A. P. Sen	 J. The learned Judge held that in the context of the Madhya Pradesh Act	 the word 'business ' had to be given a wide meaning so as to include any profession. We	 therefore	 agree with the High Court that the practice of law is 'business ' within the meaning of that expression in Section 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease	 Rent and Eviction) Control Act	 196(). The appeal is	 therefore	 dismissed with costs. M. R. Appeal dismissed.

Summary:
The respondent	 an advocate	 sought to evict his tenant	 the appellant	 under section 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease	 Rent and Eviction) Control Act	 1960	 on the ground that he required the disputed premises for carrying on his profession. The court of small causes	 Hyderabad	 finding that the requirement was bona fide	 passed an eviction order against the appellant. In revision	 the High Court negatived the contention that the expression "business" used in section 10(3)(a)(iii)	 did not include the 'profession ' of an advocate. Dismissing the appeal	 the Court	 ^ HELD: 1. "Business" is a word of large and wide import	 capable of a variety of meanings. In a broad sense it is taken to mean 'everything that occupies the time	 attention and labour of men	 for the purpose of livlihood or profit '. The practice of law is 'business ' within the meaning of that expression in section 10(3)(a)(iii). The Act is of general application	 and its protection is not confined to any classes of tenants	 nor is the right to evict under the Act	 limited to any class of landlords. There is no reason why a landlord who is a member of the legal or medical professions and who requires the premises for carrying on the practice of his profession	 should be wholly debarred from obtaining possession of the premises. It would be anamolous to hold that all the provisions of the Act apply to non residential buildings owned by an Advocate	 excepting section 10(3)(a)(iii). [14D	 E	 16A B	 C D] Williams ' Will Trusts	 Chartered Bank of India	 Australia and China and Anr. vs Williams and Ors. 	 [1953] 1 All. ELR 536; Taramal vs Laxman Sewak Surey & Ors. 	 approved. M. P. Sethurama Menon vs Thaiparambath Kunhukutty Amma 's daughter	 Meenakshi Amma & Ors.	 AIR 1967 Kerala 88; Bangalore Water Supply Sewerage Board	 etc. vs R. Rajappa & Ors.	 ; ; Stuchbery & Ors. vs General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp. Ltd.	 [1949] 2 KBD 256; distinguished. It is a sound principle of construction that	 meaning of words and expressions used in an Act	 must take their colour from the context in which they appear. Neither the meaning	 nor the definition of a term in one statute	 affords a guide to the construction of the same term in another statute	 more so	 if the two Acts in which the same word is used	 are not cognate Acts and the sense in which a term has been understood in several statutes	 does not necessarily throw any light on the manner in which it should be under stood generally. [14G H & 15A] 13