MANGUBHAI RANCHHODJI DESAI Vs. ALIBHAI NOURMOHAMAD
LAWS(GJH)-1960-11-2
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on November 14,1960

MANGUBHAI RANCHHODJI DESAI Appellant
VERSUS
ALIBHAI NOURMOHAMAD Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KARNANI PROPERTIES LTD. V. MISS ANGUSTINE AND OTHERS [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

MINOR ANISH ACHYUT CHINUBHAI VS. NANIKRAM SOBHRAJ MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-1991-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK THADHARAM CHAWLA VS. MAHABALI BOGHA SHETTY [LAWS(GJH)-1991-6-36] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

S.T.DESAI - (1.)This revision application has been referred to a Division Bench as it raises a question of some importance under the Rent Act. The petitioner is the original defendant No. 1 and respondent No. 1 is the original plaintiff to the suit out of which arises this application. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1900.00as arrears of rent of the property in suit which is a weaving factory. lie also sought possession of the same and mesne profits. This case was that property together with machinery which formed part of the factory had been leased to the defendants for the purpose of a weaving factory at the monthly rent of Rs. 300.00. The defendants in their written statement raised numerous contentions. They claimed that standard rent of the premises should be fixed and that they were entitled to the protection of the rent law. The learned Civil Judge framed two preliminary issues and had decided both of them against the petitioner tenant. The first issue related to the validity of the notice to quit which the plaintiff had served on the tenant. The second issue related to the contention of the plaintiff that the factory which was situate in a house belonging to the plaintiff was not premises within the ambit and operation of the Rent Act 1947
(2.)A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Karlekar learned Advocate for opponent 1 and the objection is that the petitioner has come to this Court at an interlocutory stage. Now it is true that this Court does not encourage revision applications being brought before it from interlocutory orders. In the case before us there was a preliminary issue relating to jurisdiction raised before the learned Judge and we have decided to hear the petition on its merits.
(3.)It has been argued before us strenuously and with abundant heal by Mr. B. S. Kapadia that the learned Judge below was in error in deciding the issue of jurisdiction against the petitioner. The argument of Mr. Kapadia is that a factory is premises within the purview of the Rent Act. In order to appreciate the argument pressed for our acceptance by 54r. Kapadia it will be convenient to set out here the provisions of section 5(8) which defines premises:
Premises means (a) any land not being used for agricultural purposes (b) any building or part of a building let separately (other than a farm building) including (i) the garden grounds; garages and out-houses if any appurtenant to such building or part of a building (ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building or part of a building. (iii) any fittings affixed to such building or part of a building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof. but dose not include a room or other accommodation in a hotel or lodging house;. Section 6 rules that Part II which relates to residential and other premises shall apply in areas specified in Schedule I. It is not in dispute and not disputable that before a tenant can claim the protection of the Rent Act. the property let out to him must be premises as laid down in the Act. Therefore the connotation and the precise ambit of the expression premises as laid down in the Act becomes an important point for consideration. In view of the importance of that expression we should have expected a substantive provision relating to the same but as some times happens we find that we have to ascertain the ambit of the expression from an interpretation clause.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.