Chagla, C.J. Has further observed that - "Now, a mere casual occupation of premises does not constitute residence in those premises. In construing sub-clause (k), one must also bear in mind the object of the Legislature in passing this legislation. The Rent Restriction Act is passed because there was a scarcity of premises and therefore it was necessary to protect bonafide tenants and also to see that premises were not left unoccupied so that people in need of premises should not be deprived of them and also a tenant should not have one set of premises of one place and go about residing in some other premises. Therefore, the purpose within the meaning of sub-clause (k) for which premises are let is the purpose of permanent residence; not a mere casual occupation, not a mere spasmodic stay in the premises." So this decision of Chagla, C.J. interprets the words 'use' in a way connecting it with 'residence' importing that word in sub-clause (k) also and quite justifiably. As considered by me earlier, the purpose of the Rent Control Act is that the people in need of premises should not be deprived of them and also a tenant should not have one set of premises at one place and go about residing in some other premises. This is what exactly done in the instant case. The petitioner wants to continue her premises in Baroda and she states that her parents stay in the said premises. Her very parents have their own premises in Bombay where the petitioner herself stays. So it is not a case where person is without a shelter. But on the contrary, the person is trying to have shelter at both the places depriving some needy tenant of shelter in Baroda.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Civil Revision Application No. 713 of 1979
Decided On: 03.04.1984
Mohini Bhiryomal Hingorani Vs. Bhanubhai Manilal Patel
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
V.V. Bedarkar, J.
Citation: 1985 Bom RC 27
