JUDGMENT- V.A. MOHTA, J.:---Was the original defendant deceased Mahibubsaheb Abdul Rahiman Haddiwala - a licensee of open plot admeasuring 16 x 70 situated in the municipal limits of Solapur since 1972 - entitled for the protective umbrella of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (`the Act)? Both the courts below have held against him and hence this second appeal by his legal heirs against the judgment and decree for possession. 2. By Maharashtra Act No. 17 of 1973, section 5(11) defining the word "tenant" was amended and new section 15-A was inserted in the Act with effect from 1st February, 1973. By Clause (bb) of section 5(11), one more new category of statutory tenant was brought into being. The said category is - "such licensees as are deemed to be tenants for the purposes of this Act by section 15-A". Section 15-A reads thus : "15-A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or any thing contrary in any other law for the time being in force, or in any contract, where any person is on the 1st day of February, 1973 in occupation of any premises, or any part thereof which is not less than a room, as a licensee he shall on that date be deemed to have become, for the purposes of this Act, the tenant of the landlord, in respect of the premises or part thereof, in his occupation. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not affect in any manner the operation of sub-section (1) of section 15 after the date aforesaid." Section 5(4A) defines the terms "licensee", and section 5(8) the term "premises". 3. It is clear that under the new scheme only those licensees who are deemed to be tenants under section 15-A would acquire the status of statutory tenants under section 5(11). These licensees, in order to successfully claim the protection of the Act must satisfy these conditions. They must be (i) licensees as defined by section 5(4A) of the Act; (ii) in occupation on or before 1st February, 1973 and (iii) in occupation of any premises or any part thereof which is not less than a room. That the deceased Mahibubsaheb Haddiwala fulfilled first two of these conditions is undisputed. Controversy hinges round the third condition. 4. They must be (i) licensees as defined by section 5(4A) of the Act; (ii) in occupation on or before 1st February, 1973 and (iii) in occupation of any premises or any part thereof which is not less than a room. That the deceased Mahibubsaheb Haddiwala fulfilled first two of these conditions is undisputed. Controversy hinges round the third condition. 4. The term "room" is not defined under the Act and hence falling back upon its ordinary and contextual meaning is inevitable. Room commonly means a part of the building enclosed by walls or partitions, floor and ceiling. The context indicates in no uncertain terms that though in law there can be licence pertaining to the premises which is less than a room, the protection is intended to be given to only those who occupy premises comprising of atleast one room. In other words, there is no protection given under section 15-A in respect of premises which do not have atleast one room. By necessary implication it follows that no protection is available in respect of licence of only open space irrespective of its dimension. The circumstance that area of open space is more than area of one ordinary room does not alter the legal protection. Hence, the defence could not have been sustained and was rightly refuted by the courts below. 5. No other question was raised. 6. Hence, this Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.