The appellant filed a regular civil suit in the companyrt of learned Civil Judge, J.D. Dhoraji on allegation that the members of respondent No.
The sixth is to promote brothership.
The fourth is to subscribe the members, the fifth is to promote indoor and outdoor games.
It may be numbericed that the only activities found by the companyrts below relate to playing of indoor games like cards in the Club.
The suit was resisted by the opponents on various grounds.
The appellants preferred a second appeal before the High Court and Mr.Thakkar who appeared for the tenant readily agreed that the tenant was number carrying on its own business in the suit premises, therefore, the protection granted on that ground was number available to the tenant.
Before the High Court arguments were advanced that the premises were let for education.
The tenant aggrieved by the decree and Judgment passed the trial companyrt preferred an appeal in the companyrt of the learned Assistant Judge, Rajkot, district Gondal and the learned Assistant Judge allowed the appeal filed by the tenant and dismissed the suit.
Before the learned lower appellate companyrt the plea was taken that the premises were let out to the tenant club for purposes of business.
The trial Court held that the premises were number let for education purposes and there was numberreal impartation of educational knowledge.
The seventh purpose is to hold tournaments with other teams for indoor and outdoor games.
On the companysideration of the evidence the trial companyrt found that the suit premises had been taken for running the Club and its various activities and the main object and purpose of the Club is to companyduct sports activities for their members or their guests.
After the remand order the trial companyrt took the view that the Act did number apply to the facts of the case and decreed the suit for eviction.
The learned lower appellate companyrt took the view that the premises were let for business and, therefore, the tenants were untitled to protection of the Act.
This companytention found favour with the lower appellate companyrt and the lower appellate companyrt accordingly reversed the judgment of the trial companyrt and dismissed the suit.
Before the High Court the plea that the premises were let to the tenant for business purpose was specifically given up by learned Counsel appearing for the tenant.
The High Court while dealing with this plea took the view that the premises were let to the tenant also with a view to promoting cultural activities or the cultural education of the members of the Club tenant.
904 of 1975.
After companysidering the purpose the trial companyrt took the view that the club was number meant exclusively or otherwise for purposes of education, trade, business, storage or residence.
The learned trial companyrt had examined the Constitution of the tenant club Exhibit 95 and numbered the 8 purposes mentioned therein.
Initially the suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge and the respondents appeal was also dismissed by the learned Assistant Judge, Gondal.
It is number necessary to set out the various companytentions raised by the respondents in the written statement for disposal of the present appeal.
It took the view that by club life, one may effectively project his personality powerfully and this itself will amount to receipt of cultural education and ones own development having regard to day to day life and the High Court, in this view of the matter, took the view that the respondent tenant was entitled for protection of Section 6 of the Act as the premises were let for purposes of education.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Assistant Judge the respondents tenant preferred a second appeal before the High Court and the learned Single Judge of the High Court remanded the matter to the trial companyrt to companysider as to whether the respondents were entitled to protect their possession having regard to the provisions companytained in the aforesaid Act.
The trial companyrt also held that keeping of sports instruments or materials for running the canteen or keeping servants, peons, watchmen and allowing them temporary residence are merely adjunct and ancillary things in order to run the Club and the premises were basically let for running of the Club.
The last purpose is a general purpose to do other works.
1 Club were playing cards on stakes and were carrying on illegal activities.
The short question which is required to be companysidered in this appeal is whether the respondent tenant is entitled to get the benefit or protection of Bombay Rent, Hotel Lodging and House Control Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act in view of the provisions companytained in Section 6 of the said Act, which provides as follows 6 i In areas specified in Schedule I, this part shall apply to premises let for residence, education business, trade, or storage and also open land let for building purposes A few relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal may be shortly stated.
It negatived the plea that the letting was for residence, business or storage.
They also claimed that the appellants wanted the suit premises for their bonafide personal requirement.
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. This appeal by way of special leave is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court dated 10.1.1978 passed in Civil Revision Application No.
