TAVANGOWDA TAMANGOWDA PATIL Vs. YELLAPPA KRISHNA MUCHANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A plot of land in Survey No. 598 of Belgaum measuring 150 ft.x 90 ft. was leased by the father of the appellants to the respondents in about the year 1947 on annual rent. The lease was for the purpose of storing timber etc. The land was watan land attached to the office of Patil. The appellants' father died in 1956. In 1961 the appellants filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner, Belgaum for restoration of the land to them as the lease in favour of the respondents by their father was determined on the death of their father. The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated December 18, 1962, allowed the petition and directed restoration of possession of the land to the appellants. An appeal preferred to the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum and a further appeal to the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal were dismissed. The respondents filed Writ Petition No. 2427 of 1966 in the High Court of Mysore. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, holding that the respondents were protected by the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

(2.) Shri V.N. Ganpule, learned counsel for the appellants raised two contentions before us:(1) The lease in favour of the respondents stood determined on the death of the father of the appellants in 1956 and the respondents were not tenants within the meaning of S. 5 (11) of the Bombay Rent Act. (2) In any case the land in question was not 'premises' as defined in Section 5 (8) of the Act and therefore, the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act were not attracted.

(3.) To appreciate the contentions raised by Shri Ganpule it is necessary to make a brief reference to the relevant provisions of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 and the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 5 (8) of the Bombay Rents, notes and loclging House Rates control Act, 1947, defines 'premises' as meaning:-