LexMST. SUBHADRA versus NARSAJI CHENAJI MARWADI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1961 August 9. SUPREME COURT RiBPORTS MST. SUBltADRA v. [I962j NARSAJI CHENAJI MARWADI (K. N. WANOHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and J. c. SHAH, JJ.) Standard Rent-Land assessed for agricultural pur.,,Pses- If 'premises'-Bombay RentB, Hotel and Lodging Ho.use& llates Control Act, 1947 (57 of 1947), ss.5(8), 6, 11. The owner of a certain plot of land granted a perpetual lease of it on an annual rent to some persons who sublet it to the respondent on a higher rent. The respondent sublet the plot to the.appellani on 'a still higher rent. In all the three deeds of Jease it was recited that the lessee might construct buildings on the land after obtaining sanction of ·the appropriate authority but on the dates of all the three l,ea~es the plot was assessed for agricultural purposes unde;' 1Ji.e Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. The app !)µit obtained sanction of the Collector for conversion of user o "~he land to non-agricultural purposes. The appellant thereafrc; applied to the court for fixation of standard rent of the plot under s.11 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodj:ing Houses Rates Control Act, 1947. The respondent contended that the land when granted in lease being agricultural, the provisions of the Act did not apply thereto. The question which arose for decision was whether the plot .of land was 'premises' within the meaning of s.5(8)of the Act. Held, that the material date for ascertaining whether the plot is 'premises' is the date of letting and not the date of the application for fixing the standard rent. In the pef!'ent case the plot in dispute could not be regarded as 'premises' under s. 5(8) of the Bombay Act on the date of letting and the appJication for fixation of standard rent was not maintainable. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 356 of 58. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and Order dated January 21, 1955, of the Bombay High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 813 of 1953. S. T. Desai, S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, I..__ ~ for appellant. I. N. Shroff, for the respondent. - as;c.:R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 99 ·:.· 1961. August 9. The judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J.-Plot No. 68 Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Jamalpur Ahmedabad, part of survey No. 405 Monje Rajpur-Hirpur admeasuring approximately 38 Gunthas was owned by Bai Jekor and her two sisters. By a lease dated October 15, 1934, this plot of land was granted in lease by the owners in perpetuity to Gajjar Ramanlal Gordhandas and his brother at annual rental of Rs.558. The lessees- Gajjars-sublet by a lease dated February 7, 1946, the plot also in perpetuity to Narsaji Chenaji Marwadi- hereinafter referred to as the respondent-at an annual rental of Rs. 1,425. The respondent by deed dated April 25, 1947, sublet the plot to Subhadra- hereinafter referred to as the appellant- it an annual rental of Rs. 2,225. In all these three deeds, it was recited that the lessees may construct buildings on the land and for obtaining sanction in that behalf, the lessors shall make applications to the Collector or any other authority for that purpose• The plot on the dates of the three leases was assessed for agricultural purposes. Under the Bombay Land Revenue Code V of 1879, land assessed for agricultural purposes may be used for non.agricultural purpose if permission in that behalf is granted by the Collector. The appellant applied for permission for conversion of user of the land to non-agricultural purposes, and the Collector of Ahmedabad by order dated November 11, 1949, · sanctioned conversion of the user. Thereafter, the appellant by application dated October 27, 1950, applied to the Court of Small Causes, Ahmedabad for fixation of standard rent of the plot under s.11 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates, Control Act 57 of 1947-hereinafter referred to as the Act. The respondent contended that the land when granted in lease being agricultural, the provisions of Bombay Act did not apply thereto and the application was not maintainable. The 1961 Msi. Bubhadra v. 1'lar"Baji CMnaji Marwat!i Sha~ J: 11111 }.ft1t. Ssbhadra v. ~\·araaji CJ~naji ltlarwadi " too StJl>REME COURf REPORTS (19621 Court of Small Causes upheld the contention of the respondont and dismiss"<! the applic:ition. This order was confirmed in appeal to th<· District Court at Ahmedabad nncl in a revision application to the High Court o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.