NALANIKANT RAMADAS GUJJAR versus TULASIBAI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 430 · Decided: 09-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
NALANIKANT RAMADAS GUJJAR 
v. 
TULASIBAI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
AUGUST 9, 1996 
(KULDIP SINGH, M.M. PUNCHHI, N.P. SINGH, MK 
MUKHERJEE AND S. SANGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Bombay Rems Hore/ and Lodging Houses Rates (Control) Act, 1947; 
Sections 5(8) and 13(J)(a)(e)(j) and (k). 
'Preniises'-Wllat is--Lease granted in res11ect of vacant lan~-AssessCe 
constmcted building thereon before coming into force of 1947 Act-Sub-
sequent to coming into force of the Act eviction suit filed-Ground of sub-let-
ting-Held the leased land lvas pren1ises within the n1eaning of section 
5(8)-Expression "not being used"-Significance of-Applicability of 
D Act-Held cmcia/ date is when the 1ight under the Act is sought to bt· enforced 
and not lV'hen the lease lvas granted. 
Respondent's (Plaintiff) predecessor-in-interest leased out a vacant 
plot to Binny Company. The lessee Company constructed a building on the 
E 
said piece of land and installed pressing and ginning machines thereon 
before coming into force of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses 
Rates (Control) Act, 1947. The Company transferred its rights, title and 
interest in favour of S who in turn transferred the same in favour of the 
appellant (defendant). After coming into force of the 1947 Act the respon-
dent filed an eviction suit on the gruqnd of sub-letting. The Trial Court 
F 
dismissed the said suit on the ground that the provisions of Bombay Rent 
Act were not applicable to the leasehold area, over which the construction 
had been made. The High Court held that leased land was premises \\ithin 
the meaning of Section 5(8) of the Act and that the provisions of the Act 
were applicable in the facts al)d circumstances of the case. Hence this 
G appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The High Court was justified in coming to the condusicn 
that leased land was a premises "1thin the meaning of Section 5(8) of the 
H aforesaid Act and provisions of the said Act were applicable. [ 435-iF] 
430 
N.R.GUITAR v. TUlAS!BAI [N.P.SINGH,J.] 
431 
2. Once a piece of land which was agricultural in nature is put to A 
non-agricultural use, it shall be covered by the definition of 'premises' 
under Section 5(8) of the Act. Clause (a) of Section 5(8) excludes from the 
definition of premises "any land not being used for agricultural purposes". 
The words "not being used" are significant. It can be said that the framers 
of the Act for applying the provisions of the said Act in the definition of B 
'premises' indicated that the crucial date shall be the date when the right 
conferred under the Act is sought to be exercised. The lease had been 
granted to the Binny Company for installing ginning and processing 
machines and admittedly a building was constructed in which ginning and 
processing machines were installed and godown was also constructed. As 
the land had been put to non-agricultural use several decades before C 
coming into force of the Bombay Rent Act, the provisions of the said Act 
were applicable. [ 435-C-E] 
Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajbhai Abdul Rehman & Ors., (1971) l 
SCR 66, relied on. 
Mst. Subhadra v. Narsaji Chenaji Ma1wadi, (1962) 3 SCR 98, held 
inapplicable. 
C!VlL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2795 of 
1985. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.7.83 of the Kamataka High 
Court in C.R.P. No. 39 of 1976. 
Kamlendra Misra, Sidhansu and Devendra Singh for the l\ppellant. 
P.R. Ramasesh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
E 
F 
N.P. SINGH, J. The defendant in a suit for eviction is the appellant 
before this Court. The plaintiff-respondents filed the suit in question for G 
eviction of the defendant on the grounds mentioned under Section 
13(1)(a)(e), G) and (k} of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses 
Rates (Control} Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent 
Act). 
Plaintiffs grandfather Venkobacharya Anantacharya Burli had H 
432 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A leased out a portion of R.S. No. 62 of Bagalkot, measuring 275' East to 
West and 634' North to South, to Binny Company of Madras, in the year 
1889. The Binny Company had taken the said lease for making construe· 
tions to set up ginning and pressing machines and for construction of 
godown to store cotton. The said company made constructions including 
B the godown over the said leasehold area and installed the ginning and 
pressing machines. Thereafter, the said Binny Company transferred its 
righ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.