AUTOMATIC ELECTRIC LIMITED Vs. SHARADCHANDRA VINAYAK TIPNIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision, the main question that arises for my consideration is whether the suit premises were let out for residence as contemplated by section 13-A (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as the Act ). In other words, whether the Competent Authority under the Act was having jurisdiction to decide the matter.

(2.) A few facts are as follows :---Respondent is the owner of Plot No. 4, Revenue Survey No. 274 situated within Lonavla Municipal Council area. There is a bungalow and outhouse constructed by the respondent. The out-house was consisting of two rooms, two closed Verandas togehter with bathroom and W. C. It is the suit premises. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is having its manufacturing unit at Lonavala and registered office at Bombay. Under the agreement dated 1st December, 1976, the respondent gave to the petitioner the out-house for a period of two years at monthly license fee of Rs. 350/ -. It was given for residence/business. Even after expiry of the agreement, the petitioner continued to occupy it. In the year 1983, the respondent made some additions and alterations in the out-house. In view thereof, mutually it was agreed that the petitioner would pay Rs. 700/- per month from 1-11-1983. On 10-3-1988, parties entered into another agreement. It contemplated license for two years expiring on 28-2-1990 with an option to the petitioner to renew the same for two years further. It provided for a license fee of Rs. 700/- per month (i. e. Rs. 350/- as compensation for use of the premises and Rs. 350/- towards the use of furniture and fixtures ). It provided that the licensed premises shall be used as a Rest House by the licensee and/or its officers. On 22nd December, 1989, the respondent gave notice terminating the agreement dated 10th March, 1988 and calling upon the petitioner to vacate the same by the end of February, 1990. Petitioner did not exercise its right to renew nor vacated the suit premises. Therefore, the respondent filed the petition before the Competent Authority under section 13-A (2) of the Act for recovery of possession. Petitioner contested it by contending that the agreement dated 10th March, 1988 was not an agreement for licence, but an agreement to give the suit premises on monthly rent. It was contended that the petitioner was not a licensee, but a tenant under the Act and the petition under section 13-A (2) cannot lie. The petitioner further contended that the premises were not given for residence as contemplated by section 13-A (2) and the petition was not maintainable and the Competent Authority had no jurisdiction to decide it.

(3.) THE learned Competent Authority, Pune Division, Pune, by his judgment and order dated 19th April, 1991 held that the agreement was an agreement for license and the premises were not given to the petitioner on tenancy basis or that the petitioner cannot be called as tenant under the Act. The agreement of 1976 need not be looked into in view of the Explanation (b) to section 13-A (2) of the Act. It is also held that the premises were given for residence and not for non-residential purpose and hence the petition filed by respondent fell within the ambit of section 13-A (2) of the Act and the Competent Authority was having jurisdiction to decide it. The said judgment is under challenge in this Revision.