Restrictive definition of paying guest: no extra English-law conditions, and exclusive possession did not defeat the statutory test.

A restrictive statutory definition of "paying guest" under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 required only that a non-family member occupy part of premises while the licensor resided in the remaining part. The Court rejected importing additional English-law conditions such as unity of residence, joint occupation, or superior control, and held that exclusive possession of the occupied portion did not by itself take the case outside the definition. On the facts, the appellant was a paying guest and not a licensee, so he could not claim deemed tenancy under Section 15A.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was a "licensee" or a "paying guest" within the meaning of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and consequently whether he was entitled to claim deemed tenancy under Section 15A.

Analysis: The definition of "paying guest" in the Act is a restrictive one and requires only that the occupant be a non-family member given a part of the premises in which the licensor resides. The Court held that it is impermissible to import additional requirements such as unity of residence, joint occupation, or the licensor's superior control from English law or from the concept of a lodger. Once the statutory ingredients are satisfied, exclusive possession of the occupied part does not take the case out of the definition. On the facts, the appellant occupied a part of the premises while the licensor continued to reside in the remaining part of the same premises.

Conclusion: The appellant was a paying guest and not a licensee for the purpose of Section 15A; therefore, he was not entitled to claim deemed tenancy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute gives a restrictive definition, the court must give effect to its plain terms and cannot add extra conditions not expressed by the legislature.

---