LexDWARKA PRASAD versus DWARKA DAS SARAF
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
D F DW ARKA PRASAD v. DWARKA DAS SARAF August 11, 1975 277 [A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATHEW, V. R. KRISHi'IA IYER Ai'ID S. M. F,AZAL Au, JJ.] U.P. (Te1nporary) Con~rol of Re11t and E1·iction Act, 1947 s. 2(a)-Scope of -Tc1t ro detcnnine what is acco1nmodation whete the lease is coniposite. !nterpretation--Proviso-How cou.'·d be read The term "accommodation" !s defined bys. 2(a) of the U.P. (l"'emporaty) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 to mean residential and non·residentir,1 accommodation in any building or part of a building and includes, among others. any furniture supplied by the landlord for use '.n such building or part of a build· ing and any fittings affixed to such building or part of a building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof. A proviso was added to clause (a) by the Amend- ing Act XVII of 1954 which says "but does not include any acco1n1nodation used as a factory or for an industrial purpose 'vhere the business carried on in or upon a building is also leased out to the lessee by the sam-e transaction." The respondent took on lease the cinema theatre of \Vhich the appellant was the ow.oer. The lease deed provided a rent of Rs. 400 p.m. for the building sin1pliciter and Rs. 1000 for the projector, fittings, fans and other fixtures. The suit for ev'..ction filed by the appellant was dismissed by the trial court hc•lding that the suit property was not accommodation"' within the meaning of the .-\ct. The High Court upheld the view of the trial court. On appeal to this Court it w<ls contended that the dominant purpose or real subject of the lease was the cinema apparatus and fittings, including subsidiarily and incidentally the building. Allowing the appeal, liELD : The lease sued on does not fall within the scope of accommodation. The appellant is entitled to a decree of eviction. [2.90B] (1) (a) The lease of an accommodation must essentially be of a building- not ai business or industry together with the building in which it is situa:ed. [282B-C] (b) Where the lease is composite and has a plurality of purpos~s, the decisive test is the dominant purpose of the demise. The additions such as gartlcns, · grounds and out-houses, if any, appurtenant to such building, any furniture sup- plied by the landlord fQr the use in such building, electrical fittings, sanitary fit- tings, and so on, arc subservient and beneficial to the build'.ng itself. They make occupation of the building more convenient and pleasant when the principal thing demised is the building and the additions are auxiliary. The furniture and fittings \'isualised in the concept of building are calculated to improve the bene- ficial enjoyment of the premises Ieas·~d. [282D-E] (c) The legisl<1.t'.ve policy is to control rents and evictions of buildings, rack- renting and profiteering by indiscriminate eviction from buildings, residential and non-residential. The law sought to rescue exploited tenants Df bu~ldings. It is, therefore, fair to hold that the protected category of accommodation \Vas re~i dential and non-residential buildings and not bU'siness houses. [283A-B] (d) It would be a travesty of language to speak of a lease of a building ·when what is substantially made over is a business or industrial plant. If a bu"iness were the subject matter of the lease, the prominent thing will be not what houses the business but the business itself. The building becomes secondary since eYery 278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1976) 1 S.C.R. business or industry has to be accomn1odated in some ~ndosure or building. In A all such cases the lessor makes over possession of the bu!lding as part <ind parcel of the transfer of possession of the business. [283E-F] In the instant case a consoectus of factors settles the issue in favour of the landlord that the real intentiori of the parties to the lease was to demi<;e primarily the cinema equipment and secondarily the build~.ng, the lease itself being a com- posite one. [2848-C] (2) If on a fair construction, the principal provision is clear, a proviso can- not expand or lirnit it. Somet'.m.es a proviso is engrafted by an apprehensive draftsman to ren19ve possible doubts, to make matters plain, to light up ambigu- ous edges. A proviso ordinarily is but a proviso although the golden iule is to read the whole section, inclusive of the prov'.so, in such manner that they 1nutually throw light on each other and resl!lt in a harmonious cons
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.