Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"In order to secure uniformity in the administration of the law on the subject, it is necessary to have unified law applicable throughout the State. The Government have, therefore, decided to integrate both the Acts. The have also decided to take the opportunity to incorporate some new provisions in the law so as to overcome certain difficulties experienced in the working of the existing Act. The Bill is intended to give effect to the above decisions."

Then, in bringing about uniformity, the Legislate has added the words "or any fittings affixed" to the definition. The preamble to the Act was made not only to control rents of buildings, but also to prevent unreasonable eviction of tenants therefrom. The Act deals with not only residential buildings, but also non-residential buildings. Besides, the definition of the word "buildings" takes within its purview gardens, grounds, garages and out-houses if any, appurtenant to the house, hut or part of the house or hut. Further, it included any furniture supplied or any fittings affixed by the landlord for use in the house, or hut. At the same time, the definition also has taken care to declare that a building within the meaning of the Act, does not include a room in a hotel or a boarding house. The exclusion of a room in a hotel or a boarding house is in our view very meaningful in the context it occurs. It denotes that barring a room in a hotel or a boarding house, all tenancies in respect of structures came within the ambit of the definition. It is, therefore, reasonable to infer that the intendment of the Act is to confer wide amplitude on the word 'building'.

20. In AIR 1953 Sau 113, the Saurashtra High Court has to decide the question as to whether a lease of a talkie house came within the definition of the expression 'premises' contained in the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rtes control Act, 1947. The definition there in addition to being analogous to the definition in the Madras Act, further contained the words 'also including any fittings affixed to such buildings or part of a buildings for theme beneficial enjoyment thereof.' The learned Judges held that the lease of the theatre which included furniture, electric fittings and also a generator for generating electricity came with the scope of the expression 'premises' occurring in the Bombay Act.

It should be noted that the material part of the definition of 'premises' occurring in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, so far as this point is concerned, was the same as the definition in the earlier Kali Pradad's case, .

23. The Supreme Court itself considered the cope of the expression 'premises' defined in Section 2 (8) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions)Act, 1950 in . As we said, the definition in S.2 (8) materially tallies with the definition contained in the Andhra Pradesh Act and in the Andhra Padesh Act and in addition contains the words 'any fitting affixed by the land lord for the use of the tenant....."

26. There is a single Judge's decision of the Madras High court in Nanda Rao. v. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar(1969) 1 Mad LJ 153, which also considered the question whether a particular lease of a take house fell within the ambit of the expression 'building' contained in section 2 (2) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The definition included the words 'any fittings affixed by the landlord.' Natesan J., who decided the case reviewed some of the cases we have referred to above and finally, at page 162 made the following observation: