Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from a suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff-respondents against the defendant-appellant under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates (Control) Act, 1947. The plaintiffs sought eviction on grounds including sub-letting under Section 13(1)(a), (e), (j) and (k). The property in dispute was a portion of R.S.No.62 in Bagalkot, originally leased in 1889 by the plaintiffs' grandfather to Binny Company of Madras. The lease was for vacant land, but the lessee constructed a building, installed ginning and pressing machines, and built a godown for cotton storage. The leasehold interest was transferred in 1929 to Shilvantappa and later to the deceased husband of defendants 1 and 2. The trial court dismissed the suit holding the Bombay Rent Act inapplicable to the leasehold area; the District Judge affirmed; but the High Court in civil revision held the Act applicable. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether land originally leased as agricultural/vacant land but later used for non-agricultural purposes fell within the definition of 'premises' under Section 5(8) of the Bombay Rent Act, and what date was crucial for determining applicability. The appellant contended that since the initial lease was of vacant land, the Act did not apply. The respondents argued that the land had been put to non-agricultural use for decades before the Act came into force, so it was 'premises'. The Supreme Court examined the definition of 'premises' which includes any land not being used for agricultural purposes. It noted the conflict between two earlier decisions: Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman, 1971 (1) SCR 66, which held the crucial date is when rights under the Act are exercised, and Mst. Subhadra v. Narsaji Chenaji Marwadi, 1962 (3) SCR 98, which suggested the date of letting was material. The Court reconciled the cases by pointing out that in Mst. Subhadra, the land remained agricultural with only an order of conversion and no construction, whereas in Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi, construction had been made and eviction sought. Here, the land had been converted to non-agricultural use with buildings and machinery decades before the Act came into force. The phrase 'not being used' in Section 5(8)(a) indicates a continuing state at the time of exercise of rights. Therefore, the Court held that once agricultural land is put to non-agricultural use, it becomes 'premises'; the crucial date is the date when the right under the Act is sought to be exercised, not the date of original lease. It agreed with Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi and dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Premises Definition - Agricultural Land Converted to Non-Agricultural Use - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates (Control) Act, 1947, Sections 5(8), 6, 11 - The court resolved conflict between Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi and Mst. Subhadra regarding whether land originally leased as agricultural but later used for non-agricultural purposes constitutes 'premises'. The court held that once agricultural land is put to non-agricultural use, it becomes premises; crucial date is when rights under the Act are exercised, not date of original lease. The land in question had buildings, ginning and pressing machines, and godown, so Act applied. Held that High Court was justified in holding Act applicable. (Paras 1-4) B) Statutory Interpretation - Meaning of 'Not Being Used' - Continuous Present Tense Indicates Current Use - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates (Control) Act, 1947, Section 5(8)(a) - The phrase 'not being used for agricultural purposes' signifies the framers intended the date of exercise of rights as the crucial date, not historical use. The court affirmed the view in Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi and distinguished Mst. Subhadra on facts because there no construction had been made and only conversion order was obtained. In the present case, land was used for non-agricultural purposes decades before the Act came into force, so it fell within the definition. Held that the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates (Control) Act, 1947 apply to land originally leased as vacant/agricultural land but subsequently used for non-agricultural purposes, and what is the crucial date for determining whether land is 'premises' under Section 5(8).
Final Decision
The appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the land was 'premises' within Section 5(8) and the provisions of the Act were applicable.
Law Points
- Definition of premises under Section 5(8) includes land not used for agricultural purposes
- crucial date for determining applicability of Bombay Rent Act is date when right under Act is exercised not date of original lease
- land converted to non-agricultural use before Act came into force falls within definition
- phrase 'not being used' indicates current use at time of exercise of rights
