Fruit & Vege· tahle Merchants Union v Delhi Improve· ment Trust November g, [19571 the Control Act do not apply to the premises in ques- tion. That being so, it must be held that there is no
merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. KARNANI PROPERTIES LTD. v. AUGUSTIN (JAGANNADHADAS, B. P. SINHA AND ]AFER IMAM JJ.) Rent Control-Standard rent, Fixation of-Lease providing for a consolidated rent–Landlord undertaking to provide special amenities including supply of electric current-Applicability of the Act- Determination of fair and reasonable rent-WeSt Bengdl Premises Rent Cont.-ol (Temporar,Y Provisions) Act of 1950 (West Bengal XVll of 1950), s. 9 cl. (g) Sch. A.
The appellant was the comthon landlord of the three premises. in respect of which three analogous proceedings were started by the respective tenants for standardisation of rent under s. 9 read with Sch. A of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1950.
Under the terms of the lease, which provided for a consolidated monthly rent, the landlord was te> provide, besides electric installations, electric current for consump- tion and other special amenities. His defence was that the special incidents of the tenancies took the tenancies out of the scope of the Act and if not, alternatively, cl. (g) of s. 9 of the Act should apply and the rent increased proportionately to the increase in the charges for electric current and enhanced Government duty payable thereon.
The Rent Controller rejected the contentions and fixed· the standard rent in· accordance with the rules laid down in Sch. A of the Act. The Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, on appeal by the landlord, applied cl. (g) of s. 9 of the Act, gave relief in respect of the higher charges for electricity and Government duty and fixed the standard rent at a higher figure. The tenants moved the High Court in revision and it held that cl. (g) of s. 9 did not apply and virtually, though not entirely, affirmed the decision of the Rent Controller.
The landlord appealed by special leave on the qu"tstions of law involved. Held, that the Act applied to the premises and the standard: rent must be determined under the provisions of cl. (g) of s. 9 of the Act and the decision of the Chief Judge restored.
S.C.R. The term 'premises' as defined in s. 2(8) of the Act was wide enough to cover the tenancies with their special incidents and the consolidated monthly rent for the amenities provided by the land- lord came within the comprehensive sense in which the word rent was used by the Act and was as such liable to be controlled under it.
The observation to the contrary made in respect of such rent in the case of Residence Ltd. v. Surendra Mohan did not correctly represent the legal position. Property Holding Co., Ltd. v. Clark, (1948) 1 K. B. 630, and Alliance Property Co. Ltd. v. Shaffer, ( 1948) 2 K. B. 464, referred to. Residence Ltd. v.
Surendra Mohan, A.I.R. 1951 Cal. 126, considered. The purpose which the legislature had in view in enacting the Act and the wide terms in whiLh it defined the term 'premises' leave no
manner of doubt that its operative provisions were intended to have a wide .application and the mere putting in of a term. in the lease, not in terms provided for by any of the clauses. of s. 9, could not take the tenancy out of the scope of the Act and it would be the duty of the Court, in order that the provisions of the Act might have full effect, to give as wide an application to- them as was permissible under the Act.
Where, as in the instant case, the lease provided for a consoli· dated monthly rent, the Rem Controller and other authorities. under the Act were empowered by the provisions of cl. (g) of s. 9- to determine the standard rent on a consideration of all the· payments that constituted the agreed rent and they did not prohibit a recourse to such other provisions of the Act as could be applied, either in part or as a whole, in arriving at a fair and reasonable rent. CIVIL
APPELLATE JuRISDICTION: Nos. 32 ·to 34 of 1955. Civil. Appeals Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 5, 1952, of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Revision cases Nos. 3257, 3258 and 3259
of 1951 arising out of the order dated September 7, 1951, of the Court of Small Causes at Calcutta, 4th Bench, in R~nt Appeal Nos. 115, 743 and 744 of 1951. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, D. N.
Mookerji and Sukumar Ghose. for the appellant. S.C. /anah and S.N. Mookerji for the respondent. 1956. November 9. The Judgment of the Court· was delivered by SINHA J.-The substantial question for determina-
tion in these three analogous appeals by special leave ig;> Kll77Ullli Properti.s Ltr/. A.ugustin Sin!iaJ. Koma11i l'rop<rtks Ltd. v. A.uguslin Sioha]. [1957] is whether the provisions of s. 9 of the West Bengal
Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 (which hereinafter will be referred to as "the Act") apply to the three premises which formed the subject matter of three separate proceedings
in the courts below; and, if so, which clause thereof. The common landlord is the appellant in each case, the respondent in each case being the tenant of the parti- cular tenement.
In order to appreciate the points of law at issue between the parties, it is necessary to state the relevant facts shorn of all details relating to .the basic rent and the standard rent fixed at different stages of
the· proceedings. · Those details are not necessary for the determination of these appeals. The undisputed facts are that the appellant is seized and possessed of several municipal holdings collectively known as the Karnani
Mansions. 25-A, Park Street, together with adjoining premises situated at the junction of Park Street and Free School Street in the city of Calcutta. There are about 210 flats of different types and shop-rooms in the
said Karnani Mansions let out separately to tenants. The tenant in each of the three cases leading up to the appeals in this Court had been inducted by the prede- cessor-in-title of the appellant. In each case the tenancy consisted of a single room, a bath and a covered
verandah. The tenant has also the use of a number of fans. plug points, towel racks, besides a basin, a commode and a glass shelf. The landlord also supplies without any additional
charge electrical energy for consumption by the tenant for the use of lamps, fans, radio. ovens for cooking, for ironing, laundering and refrigerators. The landlord is also responsible
for repairs of the electric installations and sanitary fittings, as also for suoplying service of night guards, sweepers, liftmen etc. The tenant in each case applied before the Rent Controller of Calcutta under s. 9 read with
Schedule A of the Act for fixation of standard rent in respect of the flat occupied by the. applicant. The landlord resisted the application on the ground, inter alia that the Rent Controller was not authorised by
the Act to deal with the tenancies in question because ;, – S.C.R. the premises were outside the scope of the Act; that there had been a great increase in the cost of main- tenance, as also of repairs and replacements of electric
and other installations, that there had been a consider- able enhancement of the charge for electricity supplied by the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. and of Government duty on the same; that if the court
held that these premises were governed by the 1 provi- sions of the Act, the landlord was entitled to proportion- ate inc;ease in respect of those charges; that the fact that the Act does not make specific provision for
increasing the rent with reference to the charges aforesaid would also point to the conclusion that the Act was not intended to be applied to the tenancies in question. The Rent Controller after having inspec-
tions made of the premises in question fixed a standard rent in accordance with the rules· laid down in Schedule A to the Act. The rent thus standardized· was to t.ake effect from September 1, 1950. The appellant
preferred an appeal to the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court; Calcutta, against the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority allowed the landlord's appeal in part by sc;.tting the standard
rent at a higher figure than that arrived at by the Rent Controller by applying the provisions of cl. (g) of s. 9. The Appellate Authority aforesaid negatived the landlord's contention that the premises in question
·providing the special services and amenities aforesaid were outside the ambit of the Act. It gave the landlord relief in respect of the higher charges for electric con- sumption and
Government duty aforesaid. The· standard rent thus fixed by the appellate authority was in excess of the original rent agreed between the parties. The tenant in each case moved the High Court
of Calcutta in its revisional jurisdiction. The learned single Judge of the High Court who heard the revisional applications allowed them in part, giving effect vir- tually, though not entirely, to the decision of the Rent
Controller and holding that cl. (g) of s. 9 of the Act was not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the cases before the court. He relied upon a Division Bench ruling of the same Court in the case of Residence
Kamani ProperiUs /Jd. v. Augustiri Sinha]. Karnani Properties Ltd. v. Augustin Sinha]. [1957J Ltd. v. Surendra Mohan(•), which, it is agreed at the Bar, is on all fours with the fa<;ts and circumstances of the
present case. After the rejection by the High Court of the appellant's petition for a certificate under Art. 133 of the Constitution, the appellant obtained from this Court special leave to appeal on common questions
of law. Hence the appeals in each of these three cases have been heard together. In these appeals the learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the appellant . raised substan-
tially two points for determination, namely, (!) that the Act does not apply to the premises in question in view of the special incidents of the tenancy as dl~dosed in the terms of the lease in the standard form as
.exhibited in Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1955 Exhibit J) between the appellant and Miss M. Augustin, and as found by the courts of fact below; and (2) alterna- tively, that if the Court were to come to the conclusion
that the premises in question were within the ambit of the Act, clause (g) of s. 9 should be applied to the tenancies in question as determined by the appellate authority aforesaid.
Adverting to the first point raised on behalf of the appellant, we have to notice an argument which was raised for the first time before us, namely, that the definition of "premises" in s. 2(8) would not in terms
apply to the tenements in question and that if any provisions of the Act could be attracted to these cases, cl. (3) of s. 2 defining "hotel or lodging house" could more appropriately be
applied to the tenancies in question. As this point in this form has not been raised in the courts below or even in the statement of the case in this Court, we refuse to go into that question, even assuming that the controversy thus raised
does not require any fresh findings of fact. These cases have not been fought on that ground and, in our opinion, it is too late to raise for the first time a controversy in that form. We have therefore to examine the question
whether the definition of "premises" _as contained in s. 2(8) of the Act is not comprehensive enough to be (1) A.I.R. 1951 Cal. 126. . ·- -' . S.C.R. applicable to these cases. The definition is m these
terms:- " 'premises' means any building or part of a build- ing or any hut or part of a hut let separately and includes- ( a) the gardens, grounds and out-houses (if any) appertaining to such building or part of a building or
hut or part of a hut, (b) any furniture supplied or any fittings affixed by the landlord for use of the tenant in such building or part of a building or hut or part of a hut, but does
not include a room or part of a room or other accom- modation in a hotel or lodging house or a stall in a municipal market as defined in clause ( 44) of s. 3 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, or in any
other market maintained by or belonging to a local authority or a stall let at variable rents at different seasons of the year for the retail sale of goods in any other market as defined in clause (39) of s. 3 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, or clause (30) of s. 3 of the Bengal Municipal
Act, 1932". It has been contended for the appellant that "premises" thus defined do not include tenements with the special facilities and conveniences agreed by the landlord to be supplied to the tenants. In this
connection reference was made to the definition of "premises" as contained in the previous legislation like the Calcutta Rent Act (Bengal Act III), 1920, the Calcutta House Rent Control Order, 1943, the Calcutta
Rent Ordinance (No. V), 1946 and the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, XXXVIU of 1948, which has been replaced by the Act. It will serve no useful purpose to_ go into the
ramifications of the definitions in the different pieces of legislation which ~eal with the same subject matter. We have to construe the Act as it stood. The Act has now been replaced
by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (Act XII), 1956. But it is agreed at the Bar· that we are concerned with the Act as it stood before it was replaced by the Act of 1956. The definition
of "premises" set out above is in very wide terms K'arnani Pro- pert~s Ltd. Augustin Sinha]. Kamani Prrr pmus Lui. v. Augustin Sinha]. [1957] and includes not only gardens, grounds and outhouses,
if any, appertaining to a building or part of a building, but also furniture supplied by the landlord for the tenants' use and any fittings affixed to the building,. thus indicating that the legislature was providing for
.all kinds of letting. The definition of "premises'' and "hotel or lodging house" between them almost exhaust the whole field covered by the relationship of landlord and tenant, subject to the exceptions noted in the
.definition of "premises." It is admitted at the Bar that the tenancies m question are regulated by the terms and conditions .appearing in Exhibit J, the most important of which is clause ( 1) in the following terms :-
"That the tenant shall occupy the said flat paying therefor unto the Bank a monthly rent of Rs. 100 including hire of 2 A.C. fans and extra Government duty on electric current without any reduction or
abatement to be paid at the Bank on or before the 7th of succeeding month for which the rent is due and that the said rent is inclusive of charges for current for fans, lights, radio and electric stove not exceeding
600 Watts for heating meals and making tea only, use of lift, hot and cold water, the owner and occupier's shares of Municipal Taxes." It is clear from the terms of the clause quoted above
that the land!Ord was to place at the disposal of the tenants ·not only electric installation including fans but also electric current to be consumed in the use of those installations etc., besides radio and electric
stove. It was argued that the tenancy comprised not only buildings and structures and permanent fixtures but also the supply of electric . power without any fresh charge for the same. It was also pointed out that
s. 9 dealing with fixation of standard rent did not in terms ~ontemplate the enhancement or reduction of rent according ,a.s the rates for electric current and Government duty thereon were enhanced or reduced.
It is true that none of the els. (a) to ( f) of s. 9 has any reference to these considerations. Clause (b) makes a specific reference only to increase in municipal taxes, S.C.R. rates or cesses. But then there is the residuary cl. (g)
and the question whether that clause applies to the present cases will have to be discussed separately when the second point in controversy will be taken up for consideration. It is enough to point out at this stage
that the legislature was conscious that contingencies may arise which would not be covered by any of the specific els. (a) to ( f) of s. 9 which is the operative section in the Act relating to fixation of standard rent.
Under this head the question reduces itself to this : whether, if by a stipulation between the landlord and the tenant the landlord agrees to provide for additional amenities like
electric power for consumption and such other facilities, the case is taken out of the operation of the Act. The Act is intended "to make better provision for the control of rents
of premises." It has defined "premises" in very wide terms, as pointed out above. Hence it is difficult, if not impossible, to accept the contention that the legislature- intended the provisions of the Act to have a limited
application depending upon the terms which an astute landlord may be able to im!1me upon his tenants. In order fully to give effect to the provisions of the statute, the court has to give them the widest appli-
cation possible within the terms of the statute. Having those considerations in view. we do not think that the supply of the amenities aforesaid would make any difference to the application of the Act to the premises
in question. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Property Holding Co. Ltd. v. Clark( 1 ) and the case of Alliance Property Co. Ltd. v. Shaffer(•) which followed
the earlier decision to the effect that if the stipulations between landlord and tenant include payment of rent for not only what may- properly be characterized :u premises within the ordinary acceptation of the term
but also payment in respect of lighting, cooking equip- ment, the furnishing and cleaning of haH and st~\ircasc and certain other similar amenities, the sum total of the payments in respect of the building or part of the
building and other services and amenities constitute _ (1) [1948) '1 K.B. 630. (2) [1!)48) 2 K.B. 464. K an11mi Pro- ~erties Ltd. _y. ~llluslin Sinha]. Karnani Properties Ltd. Augustin
Sinha]. [1957] rent. In the earlier case of Property Holding Co. Ltd. v. Clark (supra) the facts, shortly stated, were that the agreement between the landlord and the tenant in writing provided for the . payment of £110 a year as
rent and an additional payment of £30 a year in respect of the additional amenities and conveniences like lighting and. cooking equipments, furnishing and clean- ing of hall and staircase etc. In an action for rent by
the landlord at the rate of £140 a year the tenant contended that the rent proper was only £110 and not the total sum of £140 a year payable on all counts, as aforesaid. The Court of Appeal allowed the landlord's
appeal and held. that the standard rent was £140 and not only £110. In the course of his judgment Asquith L.J. adopted the language of Younger L. J. in the case of Wilkes v. Goodwin( 1 ) to the following effect:-
"The first of these ( consideratiops) is that the word 'rent' in this exception surely means not rent in the strict sense but the total payment under the instru- ment of letting. The exception assumes tha· 'rrnt' so
called may include, for example, 'board', payment of which is not rent. I · am here paraphrasing the statement -of Shearman J. in Nye v. Davis(') with which I agree." Their Lordships of t11e Court of Appeal repelled the
.contention that the additional payment was not part -of rent and held that the payment in respect of the additional amenities aforesaid was also part of rent within the meaning of the English Act which corres-
ponds to the Bengal Act. Those English decisions are authorities for the proposition that "rent" included not -0nly what is ordinarily described as rent in an agree- ment between a landlord and a tenant but also payment
in respect of. special amenities provided by the landlord under the agreement between him and his tenant. The term "rent" has not been defined in the Act. Hence it must be taken to have been used in its ordinary
dictionary meaning. If, as already indicated, the term "rent" is comprehensive enough to incltllle all pay- ments agreed by the tenant to be paid to his landlord for the use and occupation not only of the building and
(1) (1923] • K.B. rn5. (•) [•922] • K.B. 56. _. -S.C.R. its appurtenances but also of furnishings, electric in- stallations and other amenities agreed between the parties to be provided by and at the cost of the land-
lord, the conclusion is irresistible that all that is includ- ed in the term "rent" is within the purview of the Act and the Rent Controller and other authorities had the power to control the same. In view of these considera-
tions we overrule the first contention raised on behalf of the appellant. But the second contention raised on behalf of the appellant, in our opinion, is well founded. "Standard Tent" has been defined in cl. ·(10) of s. 2 as follows:-
"'standard rent' in relation to any premises means- ( a) the standard rent determined in accordance with the provisions of Schedule A; (b) where the rent has been fixed under s. 9, the
rent so fixed; or at which ilt would have been fixed if .application were made under the said section; ………. " This is a definition by incorporation of the· provisions of Schedule A and of s. 9. It is common ground that
no standard rent had so far been determined in respect of the premises in question before the present proceed- ings were commenced at the instance of the respective tenants. Schedule A to the Act in clause (1) defines
"basic rent" and then cl. (2) lays down the formulae for determination of standard rent once the basic rent has been arrived at. The tenant in each case in the present appeals invoked the provisions of s. 9 read
with Schedule A of the Act for fixing the standard rent for their respective premises. The question arises which d~use or clauses apply to the terms of the tenancy as indicated above. Clause (a) cannot apply because it
cannot be said that "There is no cause for the alteration of the rate of standard rent as determined according to the schedule for anv of the reasons mentioned in the following clauses, in a~cordance with the provisions of
Schedule A." It has not been denied that electric charges and the Government duty thereon have been enhanced and that the municipal taxes also have been increased. Clause (b) also in terms cannot apply because
Kamani Pro- pertks IJll. Augustin Sinha ]. K "'11411i Pro- /Jl'flils Lid. v. bpshn Sinha]. [1957) it does not by itself entirely cover_ the cases in hand. There has been increase not only in municipal taxes
but also in electric charges, Gm·ernment duty on elec- tric consumption and in the cost of the other services and amenities specially provided for by the agreement between the parties. Clause ( c) is out of the way of
the parties because there is no question of addition, alteration or imprm·ement in the premises. Clause ( d) is similarly inapplicable because it is nobody's case that any furniture not already provided by the land-
lord has been supplied to any of the premises for the use of the tenant. Clause ( e) also has not been claimed by either party to be applicable because the special circumstances contemplated therein are not found
in these cases. Clause (f) is clearly inapplicable because the premises had been constructed admittedly much earlier than December 31, 1949. The only remaining clause is cl. (g) which is in these terms :-
"Where no provisions of this Act for fixing stand– ard rent apply to any premises, by determining the standard rent at a rate which is fair and reasonable." It will appear from the terms of the contract between
the landlord and the tenant in each case, particularly from clause ( 1) of the agreement quoted hereinbefore that the landlord has not only agreed to supply electric and other installations but also electric power and other
services for which no separate payment has been stipu- lated. It has not been denied-as a matter of fact, coun- sel for the tenants-respondents clearly admitted-that the rent fixed in each case included payment for those
additional amenities and services, though the amounts in respect of them have been separately shown in the agreement. The rent fixea was a consolidated sum for all those amenities and services, as is clearly stated in
para. 1 of the agreement set out above. But even after making . that concession the learned . counsel for the respondents strongly relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court given on
Letters _Patent Appeal from a judgment of a single Judge of that Court, in Residence Ltd. v. Surendra Mohan('). It has been laid· down in that case that th'e (1) AJ.R, 1951 Cal. 126.
S;C.R. Act is applicable to a tenancy the terms of: which included such additional conveniences _and facilities as have been provided by the landlord in these cases. W c have already indicated that we agree with that conclu-
sion. But the case also lays down the proposition that what is paid as rent for the flat does not include any payment for the additional facilities and convenienCC!I! provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant. In
this connection the High Court made the following observations :- "In my judgment when a flat is let, with the land- lord agreeing to provide certain free services, what is let is th\! flat and what is paid is paid for the flat with the landlord providing certain amenities or performing
certain obligation. What is paid is rent for the flat and no part of it can be truly regarded as payment for the services." With all due deference to the views thus expressed by that very experienced and learned Judge, we cannot
agree that those observations correctly represent the true legal position. As a matter of fact, the learned Judge has referred to with approval the judgments of the Ap~al Court and of the King's Bench :Pivision in
the cases Jllentioned above to show that the term ''rent" is comprehensive enough to include not only rent in the narrower sense of the term as ordinarily understood but also payment in respect of the addi-
tional conveniences and amenities. The learned Judge goes on to make the following observations :- "If he has undertaken obligations by the tenancy ~reement the monthly payment or the yearly pay-
ment as the case may be would be suitably adjusted. That, however, would not make the monthly or yearly payment any the less rent." The two parts of the observations quoted above can-
not be reconciled unless it can be said that the learned Judge is using the word "rent" not in the same sense but in its different connotations according to the con- text. If the learned Judge used the word "rent" in
its comprehensive sense in which the Act must be construed as having used that term, this part of the 3-75 S.C. India/59 Earaaai Propmiu Lid. v. ..fu,rutia Sin/us]. Irarnani Pro· pmies Ltd.
v. Augustin Sinha J. [1957] judgment cannot be said to be against the appellant's contention that the standard rent must be fixed with reference to all the constituents which made up the
lump sum as fixed in each case as rent. This position emerges not only from a consideration of the legal position in contemplation of the Act, but also from the terms of the agreement between the parties, as indi-
cated above. The provisions of cl. (g) of s. 9 of the Act empower the Rent Controller and the other authorities under the Act to determine the standard rent after taking into consideration all the constituents which make up
the total sum shown in the agreement as monthly rent. Those authorities are authorised to determine rent which is fair and reasonable. In thus arriving at a fair and reasonable rent they are not pr;cluded from having
. recourse to such of the provisions of the Act as may be found applicable either in their entirety or in so far as they can be made applicable. The Rent Controller gave the landlord credit only for the amount by which
the municipal taxes had b~en increased and no more, by applying the provisions of cl. (b) of s. 9. The Appell- ate Authority on the other hand, applied. the provi- sio11s of cl. (g) of s. 9 by determining the fair and
reasonable rent after taking into consideration the fact that electric charges as . also Government duty on the consumption of electric power had been increased. So had the cost of providing for the other amenities and
services. In view of our conclusion that the residuary cl. (g) applies to the terms of the tenancy in these cases, it follows that the decision of the Appellate Authority was more in consonance with the provisions of cl. (g)
than that of the Rent Controller or of the High Court. As the figures arrived at by tne Appellate Authority have not been challenged before us, we would direct that the orders passed by it should be restored and
those of the High Court and of the Rent Controller set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part as indi- cated above. But in view of the directions of _this Court at the time of granting the special leave, even
though the appellant is successful in this Court, he S.C.R. must pay the costs of the respondents, one .set of hear- ing fee to be equally divided amongst th<! three res- pondents.
Appeal allowed in part. BARODA BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY v. ITS WORKMEN (BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, s. K. DAS and GoVINDA MENON JJ.] Industrial Dispute-Bonus-One department of a municipality
Jiaving surplus earnings-Whether workers engaged in that depart- ment can claim bonus-Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 (Bom. Act XVlll of 1925). The Baroda Electric Supply Concern was owned and managed
by the State· of Baroda. Immediately before the merger of the State in the Province of Bombay, the State made a gift of the Concern to the Baroda Municipality to provide it with a new source of revenue as aid from the State might not be continued after the merger.
Later in 1951, the workmen employed in the electricity <lepartment demanded bonus and the dispute was referred for adjudication. The bonus was claimed on the basis that the elec- tric Concern was a commercial concern, that it was making huge profits and that the workmen were entitled to bonus as a share in the profits.
The municipality resisted the demand, inter alia, on the grounds that the earnings of one department could not be treated as profits of the municipality, and that as a whole the municipal budget for the relevant period was a deficit budget. Held, that the workers employed in the electricity department of the municipality were not entitled to the bonus claimed. Accord- ing to the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, under which the municipality is
constituted and functions, the earnings of one• department cannot be held to be gross profits in the ordinary commercial or trading sense. The mere fact that separate accounts were kept of the electricity department did not alter the position, as there was one budget for the municipality as a whole and income from and expenses of all departments consti- tuted the income and expenses of the municipality.
The different activities of the municipality constituted one integrated whole, Karnani Ltd. ProfJtrties v. Augustin November 13