Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. As common questions of facts and law are involved in both these petitions, they shall be disposed of by a single judgment. The short point and the only point which arises for our decision in these petitions is as to whether the buildings involved in these two petitions are entitled to exemption from payment of cess provided for in Section 28 of the Bombay Buildings Repairs and Reconstruction Board Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). As the preamble shows the Act provides for a certain time for the repairs or reconstruction of dangerous buildings, to provide for rehousing of dis-housed occupiers, and for these purposes to levy an additional cess on buildings and lands and matters connected therewith, A perusal of the provisions of the Act makes it clear that its objects are (1) to preserve the residential and tenanted buildings existing at the date of its enactment, (2) for that purpose, to set up a special agency the Bombay Buildings Repairs and Reconstruction Board, whose duties and functions would be, (a) to undertake and carry out structural repairs to buildings in respect of which the impugned tax is levied, (b) to provide temporary or alternative accommodation to occupiers of any such buildings where any such building collapses, (c) to undertake and carry out tenantable repairs to buildings placed at its disposal, (d) to move the Government to acquire old and dilapidated buildings in respect of which the cess is levied and which are beyond repairs or buildings in which structural repairs have once been carried out but further repairs are not possible, (e) to reconstruct new buildings, (f) to set up transit camps for those dishoused on account of collapses, fire, rain or tempest, and (g) to undertake demolition of dangerous buildings or portions thereof. Section 2 (c) of the Act defines a building as under:--

6. Even the preamble to the Act would show that the object of the Act was to provide for rehousing of dishoused occupiers. It could hardly be said that flying visitors to the lodgers are persons who require to be rehoused. The provisions of Section 35 of the Act provide for temporary accommodation pending structural repairs without payment of compensation and are also in respect of persons who are entitled to occupy the premises and who have a right to occupy the premises. Sub-section (6) of that section shows that after the reconstruction, a notice would issue to the occupiers concerned informing them that the building is likely to be or is ready for reoccupation from a specified date and that on their failure to occupy the premises within a period of one month from that date, the occupier forfeits his tenancy or other rights in respect of the said premises notwithstanding anything contained in the contract or in the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, or any other law for the time being in force and the said rights being deemed to have been terminated, the owner shall be entitled to possession thereof. Section 38 (2) of the Act which deals with the submission of proposals for acquisition, provides that as far as practicable, in the reconstructed building occupiers should be given accommodation with a floor area equivalent to their floor area in the old building, but in no case exceeding 68 square meters for any occupier of residential tenement. It would thus appear that it was never the intention of the Legislature to levy cess on the buildings exclusively in the occupation of the owner or on the residential buildings exclusively occupied on leave and licence basis or on buildings exclusively used for non-residential purposes. Reading these three provisions together and the preamble and the provisions of Sections 35 and 38 of the Act, it would appear that it was never the intention of the Legislature to treat the business of carrying on a lodging house as using the building for residential purposes. In this connection, we might observe that in Vivian Joseph Ferreira v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, , where the vires of the Act was challenged, the Supreme Court has made observations at page 10 to the effect that though Section 27 imposes a tax on buildings and lands, the exemptions given to buildings exclusively occupied by the owners, to buildings exclusively used for non-residential purpose, to residential buildings exclusively occupied on leave and licence, have the effect of confining the tax to residential houses occupied by tenants existing at the date of the commencement of the Act. The Supreme Court has further observed: "The Act thus makes three kinds of classification (1) by confining the tax to the residential tenanted buildings, it classifies buildings which are used for residential purpose and are tenanted, from the rest ....." Again at page 13, the Supreme Court has observed a "Likewise, the relations between the owners and persons occupying their buildings under leave and licence cannot be equated with relations between landlords and tenants. The circumstances which led to the imposition of the cess do not apply to premises in the occupation of licensees, because such licensees have no rights such as the tenants have, namely, irremovability and the freezing of rents, and the consequential reluctance or inability of the landlords to maintain their premises in tenantable repairs. There is not such statutory control over compensation paid by them as there is in the case of standard rent. Considerations applicable to them are, therefore, quite different. The two classes of occupiers, therefore, cannot be equated. The premises occupied by licensees thus form a distinct class by themselves and could not have been lumped together with tenanted premises without the danger of a challenge under Art. 14."