2013 (4) TMI 121 - SC - Indian Laws

Tenant Status Affirmed: 'Paying Guest' not 'Licensee' under Rent Control Act

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision that the appellant was a 'paying guest' under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control ... Advertisement - appellant approached the respondent in response to the advertisement published in Times of India regarding available accommodations and he was given the accommodation on payment of certain amount as compensation for the same. The moot question that falls for consideration in this appeal is about the nature of occupation of the premises as to whether the appellant is a 'licensee' or a 'paying guest' in the light of the relevant provisions under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act').A Writ petition, however, preferred by the respondent has been allowed by the High Court holding that the appellant before us is a 'paying guest'. Hence, this appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court. Held that - Generally, ordinary meaning is to be assigned to any word or phrase used or defined in a statute. Therefore, unless there is any vagueness or ambiguity, no occasion will arise to interpret the term in a manner which may add something to the meaning of the word which ordinarily does not so mean by the definition itself, more particularly, where it is a restrictive definition. No such compelling reason has been indicated to us by reason of which some more ingredients may be read in the term 'paying guest', other than which simply flow from the definition as provided. In the case in hand the definition of the word 'paying guest' begins with 'it means'. It is to be read and understood in the manner defined. There would be no justification to expand or to further restrict it by including or super-imposing some ingredients or elements which otherwise do not admit of such inclusion and to give a different colour and meaning to the defined word. A person answering the description of 'paying guest' in accordance with Section 5(6A) of the Act is to be treated as such without requiring fulfillment of any other condition. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the orders passed by the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed devoid of any force. However, considering the fact that the appellant is in occupation of premises since a long time we allow him six months time to handover vacant possession of the premises to the respondents on furnishing usual undertaking to that effect in this court within a period of four weeks from today. Issues Involved:1. Nature of Occupation: Licensee vs. Paying Guest2. Interpretation of Relevant Provisions under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947Detailed Analysis:1. Nature of Occupation: Licensee vs. Paying GuestThe primary issue in this case was to determine whether the appellant was a 'licensee' or a 'paying guest' under the relevant provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The appellant had approached the respondent in response to an advertisement and was given accommodation on payment. The trial court and the appellate court found the appellant to be a licensee, while the High Court declared him a paying guest.The trial court observed that the appellant was residing separately in a self-contained apartment and that the defendants did not retain control over the premises given to the appellant. The appellate court upheld this view, emphasizing that the licensor must retain general control over the premises and be the dominant occupier, with the paying guest in subordinate occupation. Both courts concluded that the appellant was in exclusive possession and use of the premises, thus not a paying guest.However, the High Court, relying on a division bench decision, held that a 'paying guest' is one who is not a member of the family and is in possession of a part of the entire premises in possession of the licensor. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.2. Interpretation of Relevant Provisions under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947The Supreme Court analyzed the definitions provided under the Act. According to Section 5(4A), a 'licensee' is a person in occupation of the premises under a subsisting agreement for a license fee, excluding a paying guest. Section 5(6A) defines a 'paying guest' as a person not being a member of the family, who is given a part of the premises in which the licensor resides, on license.The Court noted that the definition of 'paying guest' under the Act is clear and unambiguous, comprising three elements: (1) the person is not a member of the family, (2) is given a part of the premises, and (3) the licensor resides in the premises. The Court emphasized that the trial and appellate courts misdirected themselves by importing the meaning of 'lodger' from English law, which includes elements of unity of residence and control by the licensor. The Supreme Court held that these additional elements were not required by the Act.The Court found that the appellant was not a family member of the respondents and was given a part of the premises in which the licensor resided. Therefore, the appellant fulfilled the conditions of being a 'paying guest' as defined under the Act. The Court clarified that the exclusive possession and separate use of the premises by the paying guest were immaterial as long as the premises were part of the larger premises in which the licensor resided.The Court concluded that the legislative intent was to allow the licensor to regain possession of the whole premises when necessary, without the paying guest acquiring common lease rights. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the appellant was a paying guest. However, considering the appellant's long occupation, the Court allowed six months for the appellant to vacate the premises, subject to furnishing an undertaking.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, affirming that the appellant was a 'paying guest' under the Act and not a 'licensee'. The Court dismissed the appeal but granted the appellant six months to vacate the premises.