Deshpande, J.:— [His Lordship after stating the facts, refering to the findings recorded in favour of the petitioner and holding that the two houses were adjacent to each other, proceeded]. But Mr. Pendse says that in spite of the above factual position, plaintiff cannot succeed in getting the possession of the house in dispute, namely, No. 1163, under s. 13(1)(hh) of the Bombay Rent Act on the ground of his bona fide and reasonable requirements of the same, as he is not erecting a new building on the premises sought to be demolished, as contemplated under sub-s. (3A)(a) of the said section. Argument is that the landlord is not permitted to have an integrated plan of one new building for construction by demolition of the existing structures of the houses or buildings on more than one plot. All that s. 13(1)(hh) permits the landlord is to have the premises for the immediate purpose of demolishing them, if he can erect a new building on the premises sought to be demolished. If the new tenements are to be included in a building on some other premises, such as House No. 667 in this case, and no residential tenements are provided in the proposed plan approved by the Municipality on the present structure of House No. 1163, there is not even an attempt to comply with the provisions of s. 13(1)(hh), and as such plaintiff cannot succeed. Answer to this argument depends entirely on the construction of the words “for the purpose of erecting new building on the premises sought to be demolished”. Does the word “premises” in cl. (hh) of s. 13(1) and particularly in the latter part of the said clause quoted above, mean necessarily a building in which present tenements are located or does the word “premises”, also mean the said building or house and or some other houses belonging to the landlord by the demolition of which one new building is sought to be erected by him after approval of the same from the local authority.

2. Now, s. 12 of the Bombay Rent Act restricts the landlord's right to terminate contractual tenancies and evict his tenant according to the terms of the contract, as long as the tenant is ready and willing to pay the standard rent and observes and performs the other conditions of the tenancy in so far as they are consistent with the provisions of the Act. This is undoubtedly a restriction on the rights to hold and enjoy the property belonging to the citizen. However, this restriction is relaxed by providing several contingencies in s. 13 on the happening of which the landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy and get possession of the leased premises. Clauses (a) to (f) and (j) and (k) of sub-s. (1) of s. 13 deal with the acts of the tenant, which disentitle him to the protection of the Act and enables the landlord to terminate his tenancy. Clauses (g), (h), (hh) and (hhh) deal with the contingencies where the landlord reasonably and bona fide requires the premises for certain purposes. Clause (1) then provides for the contingency where the tenant's requirements of the leased premises come to an end because of his acquisition of suitable residential premises somewhere else. We are in this case concerned with the requirements of the landlord under s. 13(1)(hh). This clause enables the landlord to temporarily terminate the tenancy and get possession of the premises for the immediate purpose of demolishing them if the demolition is contemplated for the purpose of erecting new building on the premises sought to be demolished. This requirement must be reasonable and bona fide. Sub-sections (3A) and (3B) of s. 13 provide for certain acts by the landlord to ensure that the alleged requirements of the landlord for demolition and erection of new building are really genuine and the protection afforded to the tenant by the other provisions of the rent act is not rendered illusory. Section 17A enables the tenant to get possession of the vacated premises if the work of reconstruction is not started within the time mentioned in sub-s. (3a) of s. 13. section 17b and s. 17c further ensure that the tenant so evicted gets back the possession of the tenement in the new building on the same terms and conditions on which he occupied it immediately before his eviction.

3. The scheme as laid down in sub-ss. (3A) and (3B) of s. 13 of the Bombay Rent Act requires the landlord to obtain a certificate from the duly constituted Tribunal to the effect that the plans and estimates of the new building have been properly prepared and the necessary funds for the reconstruction of the house are available to the landlord and other conditions laid down by the State Government in this behalf are complied with by him. He is also required then to give an undertaking to the Court at the time of the institution of the suit saying that the new proposed building shall contain not less than two times the number of residential tenements and not less than two times the floor area contained in the premises sought to be demolished.

4. As stated above, all these sub-clauses and clauses of s. 13 in a way seek to relax the restrictions imposed on any landlord in the matter of enjoyment of his own property. The object of s. 13(1)(hh) seems to permit the landlord to have a new construction of his choice in place of the existing structure. But while ensuring the tenant's right to get back the possession of the premises or tenements in lieu of the lost ones on the same terms and conditions in the new building, the Legislature also has imposed a further condition on the landlord so desiring to erect a new building in place of the old, that he should undertake to have not less than two times the number of residential tenements in his contemplated new building and not less than two times the floor area contained in the premises sought to be demolished. The object of these provisions is very clear. In the first instance, the owner of the building is enabled to demolish the old types of structures which may, in some cases, be found to be only unsuitable to modern ideas and modern requirements, subject to the security of the tenant's right to get similar tenement at standard rent. But then the object also seems to be to ensure that in the course of this erection of a new building provision is also made by the landlord for more residential accommodation. The requirements of having not less than two times the number of residential tenements and not less than two times the floor area can have no other object in view.

5. But once the landlord is prepared to comply with these requirements, no other restriction is sought to be placed on his rights. He is enabled to have such type of construction as he wants, subject of course to the tenant's right to get one tenement in the said building. Of course, no Court will consider his requirements to be reasonable and bona fide if the landlord proceeds to construct palatial flats which in the nature of things will be beyond the reach of the present tenants. But that aspect will be relevant to consider as to whether the landlord's requirements are reasonable and bona fide or not. But as long as his requirements are proved to be reasonable and bona fide and as long as he is shown to possess the necessary finances and has got his plans approved from the local authority, the bombay rent act itself does not proceed to impose any further restrictions. Question then is, can any owner or landlord be prevented from having one new building in place of his two or more existing buildings, merely because, the plan of the new building does not provide for residential quarters, in the identical premises or plans, from which some of the tenants are being evicted, even though he can provide in the new building, accommodation to all the tenants in the existing building in some quarter or the other, and also is in a position to afford not less than two times the number of residential tenements and not less than two times the floor area contained in the two houses by demolishing which he wants to construct one building in accordance with one integrated plan?

6. Of course, the first inherent restriction must flow from the location and situation of such two or more houses. No such one building will be possible if the two or more such houses are not adjacent to each other or are not otherwise connected with each other by any link. In that case, no landlord or no owner can have an integrated plan for one building on two or more of his premises. The second limitation is about his capacity to have the necessary finance. The third limitation is as to whether his plan conforms to the requirements of the rules and regulations of the local authority. But these restrictions have nothing to do with the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. In case an owner is in a position to cross these limitations and hurdles discussed above and is also in a position to comply with all the requirements of the bombay rent act provided in sub-ss. (3A) and (3B) of the Act, and also satisfies the Court that his requirements are reasonable and bona fide, there is nothing in the Act which can prevent the landlord from so planning his construction and so accommodating his tenants, who are housed at present in two or more houses belonging to him and whom he wants to house in only one new building which he proposes to construct in place of the present ones by demolishing them.

7. It is against this background and this context that I have to decide the contention of Mr. Pendse, the contention being that the new building content plated by the landlord and conforming with the requirements of sub-s. (3A)(a) of s. 13 of the Act must necessarily be erected on the identical place where the present structure of House No. 1163 is located and if the tenements are erected on some other buildings, that will not be “erecting new building on the premises sought to be demolished” within the meaning of cl. (hh) of s. 13(1). Emphasis is laid on the word “premises” for the demolition of which the tenant is to be evicted on the representation that a new building is going to be erected on the same “premises”. Now, the word “premises” is defined in s. 5(8) of the Act. Sub-clause (a) of the said sub-section has no relevance for deciding the controversy in dispute. Sub-clause (b) defines “premises” to mean “any building or part of a building let separately…”. The wording of rest of the sub-clauses is not material. Then the word “tenement” is defined in s. 5(12) to mean “a room or group of rooms rented or offered for rent as a unit”. This definition of “tenement” was added by the Amendment Act, Bom. LIII of 1950, and was not originally there when the Act was introduced in the year 1948. Now, if one examines the provisions of s. 12 or the several clauses of s. 13(1) of the Act, dealing with some act or other of the tenant which deprives him of the protection of the Act, the word “premises” used therein seems to have been used with reference to the building or part of the building which is actually in occupation of one tenant. In a given case, it is capable of being construed to mean “tenement”. But that does not seem to me to be the position with regard to certain other clauses of s. 13(1), such as cls. (g), (h), (hh) and (hhh), where the landlord is enabled to get the possession of the premises either for his own occupation or for construction of new building. The sense in which the word “premises” is used in all these clauses seems to cover not only one tenement or a part of a building or one building alone, but the word is capable of covering more than one tenement or more than one part of the building or even more than one building occupied by more than one tenant. Take, for example, the case contemplated by cl. (g) of s. 13(1). One building may consist of more than one flat or more than one block or even more than one room, and all these may be occupied by more than one tenant. The landlord may reasonably and bona fide require the tenements or rooms or buildings so occupied by more than one tenant, and yet all these buildings may come within the definition of “premises” which are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for occupation by himself. The same is the case with cl. (h) of s. 13(1), where the landlord requires possession of the premises for repairs, which may have been occupied by more than one tenant, and therefore consisting of more than one tenement or even more than one building, depending of course on the nature of the repairs called for. The same is true of cl. (hh). Supposing the premises consist of one tenement or one flat in a big building and supposing the landlord establishes his bona fide and reasonable requirements for the immediate purpose of its demolition and erecting a new building thereon, surely no landlord can contemplate of erecting a new building only in place of one tenement or one block or one flat in the whole building. In the very nature of things, the scheme would be of demolishing the entire building and erecting a new building thereon. The word “premises” used in this clause must therefore necessarily mean not only one tenement or part of a building but the entire building. But then sub-s. (3A)(a) requires the landlord to increase the number of residential tenements and also the floor area. One way of complying with this requirement will be by adding more floors than are contained in the present structure. But the other way by which this requirement can be complied with can be by extending the area of the plot, if it is possible for the landlord to do so. In that case, necessarily the landlord will have to acquire more open plots or areas on which such added construction can be raised. The word “premises” therefore, in cl. (hh) of s. 13(1) not only means one tenement or only a part of a building or, for that matter, even one building but means something more. The sense in which this word is used in this clause is capable of covering the area of more than one building. In fact the word “premises” in this clause means part of a building or a building or more than one building, by the demolition of which the landlord contemplates erecting a new one building. As laid down by the Supreme Court in the case reported in Anand Nivas (P) Ltd. v. Anandji . [1965] A.I.R S.C 414., the sense in which the expression in different sections, and even clauses, is used must be ascertained from the context of the scheme of an Act, the language of the provisions and the object intended to be served thereby. The Supreme Court has held in this case that the word “tenant” used in the different clauses of s. 5(11) of the Bombay Rent Act and ss. 13, 14 and 15 covers both a contractual as well as statutory tenant, depending on the context in which the said word has been used in the said clauses of sub-s. (11), and other sections. In another judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Shamrao v. District Magistrate, Thana . [1952] A.I.R S.C 324 at pp. 326-327, S.C 1952 54 Bom L.R 877., it is held that:

“It is the duty of Courts to give effect to the meaning of an Act when the meaning can be fairly gathered from the words used, that is to say, if one construction will lead to an absurdity while another will give effect to what commonsense would show was obviously intended, the construction which would defeat the ends of the Act must be rejected even if the same words used in the same section, and even the same sentence, have to be construed differently.”

8. In Workmen, D.T.E v. Management, D.T.E . [1958] A.I.R S.C 353. the Supreme Court was interpreting the word “person” used in s. 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Their Lordships observed that the words of a statute, when there is a doubt about their meaning are to be understood in the sense in which they best harmonise with the subject of the enactment and the object which the Legislature has in view.

9. Their meaning is found not so much in a strictly grammatical or etymological propriety of language, nor even in its popular use, as in the subject or in the occasion on which they are used, and the object to be attained.

10. Having regard to these principles in regard to the interpretation of a word in a statute, and having regard to the object with which s. 13 of the Bombay Rent Act as a whole and s. 13(1)(hh) in particular, is introduced in the scheme of the Act and having regard to the context in which the word “premises” occurs in cl. (hh) of s. 13(1) as also sub-ss. (3A) and (3B) of s. 13 and the subject matter with which these sub-sections of s. 13 are dealing, the word “premises” cannot be construed to mean merely a tenement in occupation of a particular tenant or the part of a building or building occupied by one or more than one tenant. The word “premises” is wide enough to include in its sweep building or more than one building occupied by a tenant or more than one tenant, by the demolition of which one new building is sought to be erected by the landlord in accordance with the plan approved by the local authority. In this view of the matter, the contention of Mr. Pendse fails. The “premises” on which the tenements are required to be built by the landlord in terms of the scheme under s. 13(1)(hh) are not necessarily eon-fined to House No. 1163 occupied at present by the respondents in these two Special Civil Applications as tenants but the word “premises” covers both the houses, House No. 1163 as well as House No. 667, which are adjacent to each other and which belong to the plaintiff owner, by the demolition of which plaintiff seeks to erect one new building. And if the landlord has provided tenements as required under sub-s. (3A)(a) in one part of the said building, the same satisfies the requirements of the said sub-section, notwithstanding that the residential tenements are actually located in place of the structure which was standing in House No. 667 and notwithstanding that no residential tenements have been provided in place of the structure now standing in House No. 1163. The finding of the learned Assistant Judge on this point deserves to be set aside.

[The rest of the judgment is not material to this report.]

11. Rules made absolute.