9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (9) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... veral suits. It is clear under the law that the City Civil Court, Bombay, would have no jurisdiction to try these suits if the provisions of Part II of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bom. 57 of 1947), which later in this judgment we shall refer to as the Rent Act , applied to the premises in suits. For this reason the plaintiff stated in the plaint itself that this Rent Act did not apply to the demised premises. The defendant in each case pleaded on the contrary that the Rent Act applied and so the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suits. The first issue framed in each of these suits therefore was, whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned Judge held that Part II ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... direct that in any of the said areas, this Part shall cease to apply to premises let for any of the said purposes, with a further proviso that the State Government may again direct that in any of the said areas this Part shall re-apply to premises let for such of the aforesaid purposes. As there has been no notification under these provisos affecting the premises in suit, we are not concerned with them; nor are we are not concerned with sub-section 1(A) under which the State Government may direct that this Part shall apply to premises let for any other purposes. The four premises in respect of which the four suits were brought are all within the city of Bombay and thus in the area specified in Schedule I of the Act. In each of these cases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. 6. The more substantial question for consideration is whether when open land is being leased not to be used for residence in its condition of open land land but to be used for the purpose of residence after constructing buildings thereon, the letting of the open land can reasonably be called to be letting for residence. Mr. Bhatt contends that as, what is to be considered is whether the letting of the open land is for residence the land cannot be said to be for residence if not the open land, but, something constructed on the open land is to be used for residence. In such a case, says Mr. Bhatt, the land is let for construction of a building and not for residence. We are unable to accept this argument. Land can be used for many purpos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate or by the construction of temporary sheds or by putting up permanent buildings. Similarly, when a man says that he will take lease of a plot of land for storage of his goods, what he has in mind is that by taking lease of the land he will achieve the object of storing goods, irrespective of whether for such storage he will have to put up a structure or not. In the same way, we think, that when land has been let for the purpose of constructing buildings for residence, people will say that it is being let for residence, just as they will say that the land has been let for residence if the lessee intends to use it as caravan site so that the people may live on the open land in caravans. 8. In our opinion, the words let for residence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... let for residence within the meaning of section 6. is that after the building is constructed the lessee will not be able to sublet the building or any portion of it; so that in many cases where the real purpose of taking the land is for the construction of building for letting out the same, that purpose will be defeated. This argument as regards the difficulty in the matter of letting out the building constructed on the land on which lease has been taken was more plausible when the saving phrase but subject to any contract to the contrary did not form part of the section. Now, however, the cases in which such difficulty will arise, if at all, would be few and far between; for, it is reasonable to expect that when taking lease of land for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that some of the reasons given in that judgment do not stand scrutiny. We think it unnecessary however to examine whether all the reasons given in the judgment are correct. For, as already indicated, the words let for residence on a proper construction would cover the case of open land being let for construction of residential buildings and so the conclusion reached by the Bombay High Court in Vinayak Gopal's Case AIR1957Bom94 , is, in our opinion, correct. 12. It is unnecessary for us also to consider for the purpose of the present appeals as to what may happen to the sub-lessee if and when on the terms of particular lease the building ultimately vests in the owner of the land nor as to what may happen if and when on the terms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
