LAWS(MPH)-1966-11-8

TARACHAND GUPTA Vs. ANNAPURNABAI

Decided On November 13, 1966
TARACHAND GUPTA Appellant
V/S
ANNAPURNABAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is by the defendant.

(2.) THE defendant is the tenant of the plaintiffs and occupies nonresidential premises. Plaintiff No. 3 has graduated in law and has started practice. THE suit for ejectment was filed on the ground that the premises were required by the plaintiff No. 3 for locating his office. Under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, section 12 (1) (f), non-residential accommodation can only be acquired when the landlord needs the premises for his business or that of his dependents and relations. A number of defences were raised before the lower Courts; but all of them were negatived and a decree for ejectment was passed against the defendant. That decree is under challenge before me.

(3.) AFTER hearing both the sides, I have come to the conclusion that the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant cannot be sustained. The expression "business" has not been defined under the M. P. Accommodation Control Act. Under fiscal statutes, such as, Income-tax Act, there is no doubt that the expressions, "business", "profession" and "vocation" are used denoting thereby that they have different and mutually exclusive connotation. But the expressions used in one statute cannot be interpreted in the same manner in another statute unless both the statutes are pati materia. The words and expressions used in a statute are necessarily required to be interpreted in the context in which they are used. Similarly, words, if tbey are susceptible f wide connotation, must be interpreted that way if there is nothing in the statute to warrant the giving of limited connotation to those words. Grounds (e) and (f) of section 12 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act are designed to make it possible for a landlord to acquire his own property for his bona fide need. The context, therefore, does not suggest that the expression "business" should necessarily be interpreted in the resfcicted sense of covering commercial aetivity only, if that expression is susceptible of wider connotation.