PRABHUDAS DAMODAR KOTECHA & Ors. v. MANHABALA JERAM DAMODAR & Anr.

Judgment

9 S.C.R. 52 A B PRABHUDAS DAMODAR KOTECHA & ORS. v. MANHABALA JERAM DAMODAR & ANR. (Civil Appeals Nos. 6726-6727 of 2013) AUGUST 13, 2013 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] PRESIDENCY SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, 1882: c s. 41 (1) - Suits or proceedings between licensors and licensees - Suit for eviction of gratuitous licensee - Held: Is maintainable before the Small Causes Courl ., Expression 'licensee' used in PSCC Act is a term of wider imporl intended to bring in a gratuitous licensee as well and is used in general sense of term as defined in s. 52 of Easements Act - It does not derive its meaning from the expression 'licensee' as used in sub-s. (4A) of s. 5 of Rent Act Bombay Rents, Hotel and . Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 - ss. 5(4-A) and 15- A - Interpretation of statutes - Contemporenea exposition - E Easements Act, 1882 - s.52 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 0 s.41(1) -Suits or proceedings between licensors and licensees and landlord and tenant- Jurisdiction - Held: s.41(1) confers jurisdiction on Small Causes Court to entertain and try all suits and proceedings between a "licensor" and a "licensee" relating to recovery of possession of any immovable property or relating to recovery of licence fee - High Courl has correctly noticed that the clubbing of the expression "licensor and licensee" with "landlord and tenant" in s. 41(1) and clubbing of causes relating to recovery of licence fee is only with a view to bring all suits between "landlord and tenant" and "licensor and licensee" whether under Rent Act or under PSCC Act under one umberalla to avoid unnecessary delay, expenses and hardship. 52 F G H P RAB HU DAS DAMODAR KOTECHA v. MANHABALA 53 ·- JERAM DAMODAR BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE A RATES (CONTROL) ACT, 1947: ss. 5(4-A) and 15-A - 'Licensee" - Held: Under sub-s. (4A) of s. 5, "licensee" means a person who is in occupation of the premises or such part as the case may be, under a subsisting 8 agreement for licence given for a "licence fee or charge" - The definition of "licensee" under sub-s. (4A) of s. 5 is both exhaustive as well as inclusive -- But licensee under sub-s. (4A) must be a licensee whose licence is supported by material consideration meaning thereby a gratuitous licensee C is not covered under the definition of 'licensee' under sub-s. (4A) of s. 5. INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: Contemprenea expositio - Held: Is a recognized rule of D interpretation -- Concept of licence and lease were dealt with by contemporary statutes: Easements Act, Transfer of Property Act ands. 41 of PSCC Act -- Therefore, s. 41(1) of PSCC Act could not have contemplated any other meaning of the term "occupation with permission" but only the E permission as contemplated by s. 52 of Easements Act. Provisions 'pan· materia' - Held: Bombay Rent Act, 1947 and Chapter VII of PSCC Act cannot be said to be pari pateria statutes- s.5(4-A) of Bombay Rent Act and s.52 of Easements Act reflecting the expression 'licensee' are not pari material. F Noscitur a sociis - Held: When the intention of legislature in using the expression 'licensee' ins. 41(1) of the PSCC Act is clear and unambiguous, the principle of noscitur a sociis is not to be applied. G Statement of objects and Reasons - Relevance of interpreting a provision - Explained. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 along with other plaintiffs filed a suit uls 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts H 54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R. A Act, 1882 before the Small Causes Court, Bombay against the appellants (original defendants) for recovery and vacant possession of the suit premises and also for other consequential reliefs. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants were in use and occupation of the suit B premises as their guest-house and in this regard no monetary consideration was charged by them from the defendants. Permission granted to the defendants to use the premises was later revoked and since they did not vacate the suit flat, the suit was filed for eviction. The '. c Small Causes Court decreed the suit and ordered . eviction of the defendants-appellants with a specific · finding that they were gratuitous licensees. The appeal of the appellants was dismissed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court. The appellants as well as the respondents filed writ petitions before the High Court; the respondents' writ petition was for claiming mesne profits. The matter was referred to a Full Bench, which held that the expression 'licensee' would include a 'gratuitous licensee' and the suit was tenable before the Small Causes Court u/s 41 of PSCC Act. 0 E In the instant appeals, the question for consideration before the Court was: "whether a suit filed by a licensor against a gratuitous licensee u/s 41(1) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, as amended by the F Maharashtra Act No.19 of 1976 is maintainable before a Small Causes Court." Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. "Licensees" were brought within the G purview of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act) by adding s. 5(4A) and s.15A by way of amendment in the year 1973. The expression "licensee" was inserted by sub-s. (4A) in s. 5 which provided that a person in occupation of the H premises or of such part thereof which is not less than a PRABHUDAS DAMODAR KOTECHA v. MANHABALA 55 JERAM DAMODAR room, as the case may be, in a subsisting agreement for A license given only for a license fee or charge but excluded from its sweep a gratuitous licensee. [para 21 and 23) [74-C-D; 75-D-E]

1.2 Maharashtra Act 19 of 1976 made drastic changes 8 and Chapter VII was substituted for the original Chapter VII (ss. 41 to 49) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (PSCC Act). Under Chapter VII of the 1976 Amendment, the proceedings for recovery of possession u/s 41 no more remained summary and they were given status of regular suits. The expressions "licensor" and C "licensee" were introduced ins 41(1) of the PSCC Act by the 1976 Amendment. The statement of Objects and Reasons of the 1976 Amendment, inter alia, states that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings between a landlord and tenant or a licensor and licensee in different D courts, it was considered expedient to make the required supplementary provisions in the Presidency Small Causes Court. Act. [para 24-26) [75-F-G; 76-F; 77-G-H; 78- A-C]

1.3 It is trite law that if the words of a statute are themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. [para 28) [78-G] E Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. L. V.A. F Dixitulu and Others 1979 (1) SCR 26 = (1979) 2 SCC 34, Kehar Singh and Others v. State (Delhi Admn.) 1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 24 =AIR 1988 SC 1883, District Mining Officer and Others v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. and Another 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 147 = (2001) 7 SCC 358, Gurudevdatta VKSSS G Maryadit and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others 2001 (2) SCR 654 =AIR 2001 SC 1980, State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar 2005 (3) SCR 417 = (2005) 4 SCC 350 and State of Rajasthan v. Babu Ram 2007 (7) SCR 939 = (2007) 6 SCC 55 - referred to. H 56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R. A

1.4 In Mansukhlal Dhanraj Jain's case while interpreting s. 41 (1) of the PSCC Act, the Court stated that before taking the view that jurisdiction of regular competent civil court is ousted, the conditions that must be satisfied are: (i) it must be a suit or proceeding B between the licensee and licensor; (ii) or between a landlord and a tenant; and (iii) such suit or proceeding must relate to the recovery of possession of any property situated in Greater Bombay; or (iv) relating to the recovery of the licence fee or charges or rent thereof. For the purpose of the instant case, condition nos. (i) and (iii) are relevant. [para 29-30) [79-C-F) C Mansukhlal Dhanraj Jain v. Eknath Vitha/ Ogale 1995 (1) SCR 996 = (1995) 2 SCC 665 - referred to. D

1.5 In view of sub-s. (2) of s. 41 of the PSCC Act, s.41(1) takes in its compass "licensees" who do not fall within the ambit of s. 5(4A) read with s. 5(11) and s. 15A of the Rent Act 1947. Gratuitous licensee does not fall within s. 5(4A) read with ss. 5(11) and 15A of the Rent Act E 1947. The provisions of s. 41(1) also do not specifically exclude a gratuitous licensee nor does it make any licensee with material distinction between consideration or without material consideration. Further, s. 28 of the Rent Act 1947 does not confer jurisdiction on the Small Causes Court to entertain a suit against a gratuitous licensee. Section 28 read with s.5(4A) would show that a party who claims to be a gratuitous licensee is not entitled to any protection under the Rent Act 1947. [para 31-32) [80-C-F] F G

2.1 "Pari materia" words are used in s. 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 ands. 41(1) of PSCC Act and referring to the nature of suits in both the provisions would indicate that those provisions confer exclusive jurisdiction on Small Causes Court meaning thereby it H alone can entertain suits or proceedings relating to PRABHUDAS DAMODAR KOTECHA v. MANHABALA 57 JERAM DAMODAR recovery or possession of the premises. Section 28 of the A Bombay Rent Act deals with the suits between landlord and tenant and between licensor and licensee relating only to recovery of licence fee or charge while s. 41 of the PSCC Act deals with such suits between licensor and licensee also. Where the premises are not governed by B the Rent Act, the provisions of s. 41 of the PSCC Act would apply, at the same time where the premises are governed by the provisions of Rent Act, the provisions of s. 28 would be attracted. From a reading of both the provisions, it is clear that the nature of such suits as C envisaged by both the sections is the same. However, keeping in view the provisions of the two Statutes, it cannot be said that the Rent Act and Chapter VII of the PSCC Act are pari materia statutes. [para 34, 35 and 37] [81-C-G; 83-D-E] D