S.K.DAS - (1.) , J. : I have had the advantage and privilege of reading the judgments prepared by my learned brethren, Sarkar J. and Subba Rao J. I agree with my learned brother Subba Rao J., that the deed of 1-5-1949, is a lease and not a licence. I have nothing useful to add to what he has said on this part of the case of the appellant.
(2.) ON the question of the true scope and effect of S. 2(b) of the Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act, (19 of 1947) hereinafter called the Rent Control Act, I have reached the same conclusion as has been reached by my learned brother Sarkar, J., namely, that the rooms or spaces let out by the appellant to the respondent in the Imperial Hotel, New Delhi, were rooms in a hotel within the meaning of S. 2(b) of the Rent Control Act; therefore, that Act did not apply and the respondent was not entitled to ask for the determination of fair rent under its provisions. The reasons for which I have reached that conclusion are somewhat different from those of my learned brother, Sarkar, J., and it is, therefore, necessary that I should state the reasons in my own words. I read first S. 2(b) of the Rent Control Act so far as it is relevant for our purpose : "Section 2. In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, (a) ... . ... ... . ... . ... . (b) 'premises' means any building or part of a building which is, or is intended to be, let separately for use as a residence or for commercial use or for any other purpose.. . . . . . . but does not include a room in a dharamshala, hotel or lodging house." The question before us is - what is the meaning of the expression 'a room in a hotel'? Does it merely mean a room which in a physical sense is within a building or part of a building used as a hotel; or does it mean something more, that is, the room itself is not only within a hotel in a physical sense but is let out to serve what are known as 'hotel purposes'? If a strictly literal construction is adopted, then a room in a hotel or dharamshala or lodging house means merely that the room is within, and part of, the building which is used as a hotel, dharamshala or lodging house. There may be a case where the entire building is not used as a hotel, dharamshala or lodging house, but only a part of it so used. In that event, the hotel, lodging house or dharamshala will be that part of the building only which is used as such, and any room therein will be a room in a hotel, dharamshala or lodging house. Rooms outside that part but in the same building will not be rooms in a hotel, dharamshala or lodging house. Take, however, a case where the room in question is within that part of the building which is used as a hotel, dharamshala or lodging house, but the room is let out for a purpose totally unconnected with that of the hotel, lodging house or dharamshala as the case may be. Will the room still be a room in a hotel, lodging house or dharamshala? That, I take it, is the question which we have to answer. The word 'hotel' is not defined in the Rent Control Act. It is defined in a cognate Act called the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bom. 57 of 47). The definition there says that a hotel or lodging house means a building or a part of a building where lodging with or without board or other service is provided for a monetary consideration. I do not pause here to decide whether that definition should be adopted for the purpose of interpreting S. 2(b) of the Rent Control Act. It is sufficient to state that in its ordinary connotation the word 'hotel' means a house for entertaining strangers or travellers : a place where lodging is furnished to transient guests as well as one where both lodging and food or other amenities are furnished. It is worthy of note that in S. 2(b) of the Rent Control Act three different words are used 'hotel', 'dharamshala' or 'lodging house'. Obviously, the three words do not mean the same establishment. In the cognate Act, the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, however, the definition clause gives the same meaning to the words 'hotel' and 'lodging house'. In my view, S. 2(b) of the Rent Control Act by using two different words distinguishes a hotel from a lodging house in some respects and indicates that the former is an establishment where not merely lodging but some other amenities are provided. It was, however, never questioned that the Imperial Hotel, New Delhi, is a hotel within the meaning of that word as it is commonly understood, or even as it is defined in the cognate Act.
(3.) PASSING now from definitions which are apt not to be uniform, the question is whether the partitioned spaces in the two cloak rooms let out to the respondent were rooms in that hotel. In a physical sense they were undoubtedly rooms in that hotel. I am prepared, however, to say that a strictly literal construction may not be justified and the word 'room' in the composite expression 'room in a hotel' must take colour from the context or the collocation of words in which it has been used; in other words, its meaning should be determined noscitur a sociis. The reason why I think so may be explained by an illustration. Suppose there is a big room inside a hotel; in a physical sense it is a room in a hotel, but let us suppose that it is let out, to take an extreme example, as a timber godown. Will it still be a room in a hotel, though in a physical sense it is a room of the building which is used as a hotel? I think it would be doing violence to the context if the expression 'room in a hotel' is interpreted in a strictly literal sense. On the view which I take a room in a hotel must fulfil two conditions : (1) it must be part of a hotel in the physical sense and (2) its user must be connected with the general purpose of the hotel of which it is a part. In the case under our consideration the spaces were let out for carrying on the business of a hair dresser. Such a business I consider to be one of the amenities which a modern hotel provides. The circumstance that people not resident in the hotel might also be served by the hair dresser does not alter the position; it is still an amenity for the residents in the hotel to have a hair dressing saloon within the hotel itself. A modern hotel provides many facilities to its residents; some hotels have billiard rooms let out to a private person where residents of the hotel as also non-residents can play billiards on payment of a small fee; other hotels provide post-office and banking facilities by letting out rooms in the hotel for that purpose. All these amenities are connected with the hotel business and a barber's shop within the hotel premises is no exception. These are my reasons for holding that the rooms in question were rooms in a hotel within the meaning of S. 2(b) of the Rent Control Act, 1947, and the respondent was not entitled to ask for fixation of fair or standard rent for the same. I, therefore, agree with my learned brother Sarkar, J. that the appeal should be allowed, but in the circumstances of the case there should be no order for costs.;