Let for, properly construed, s. 6(1) must mean that in order that Part II may apply the premises in question must be let out for the purposes of residence, etc., and then only the leased premises would be subject to and governed by the provisions of part II. The application of that part cannot have been intended to depend upon what a lessee may do or may not do. It is the purpose of the lease and not any future choice of a lessee which determines the applications of Part II. That is the clear and obvious meaning of the words 'let for' in s. 6(1), Osman Fakir Mahomed Divecha v. Ali Akbar Javed Sadaka, AIR 1970 SC 1893: (1969) 2 SCC 623: (1970) 1 SCR 118. [Bombay Rents, Hotel, and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), s. 6(1)]
View Judgments Citing this Phrase