Judgment :- In all the writ petitions, the common question is whether the respondents can insist on the petitioners to produce licence under Section 35 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Admittedly, the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 2503 and 3340 of 1999 and the members of the petitioner/association in W.P. No. 2728 of 1999 are doing business of conducting mansion/guest houses. According to them, the mansion/guest houses are buildings consisting of several rooms, where bachelors and married persons who do not have family within the city of Chennai are permitted to stay on a monthly rent basis sharing accommodation in rooms. The tourists are also accommodated in the guest houses/mansions run by the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the monthly rent is collected in advance, and thereby create a tenancy for limited period. With respect to the tourists, it is stated that charges are being collected on a package system and no separate amount is collected for stay in the guest houses/mansions. 3. It is the further case of the petitioners that petitioner's buildings have been assessed to property tax by the Corporation of Chennai. But the Respondents 2 to 4, on the instructions of the first respondent/Commissioner of Police, came to the petitioner's mansion/guest houses and directed the petitioners to close down the guest houses immediately and warned to seal the premises on failure to close. Accordingly to the petitioners, such step was taken only on the ground that the licence is not obtained from Corporation of Chennai. When the petitioners approached the Corporation of Chennai to get licence, they were directed to get 'no objection certificate' from the respondents. But, Police authorities in turn, directed them to obtain clearance from the Corporation and Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. In W.P. No. 2728 of 1999, it is stated that the business of conducting mansion does not fall within the definition of Section 34 or 35 of the Act. 4. Respondents have filed counter. In the counter, it is specifically stated that the petitioners have to obtain proper licence as contemplated under Section 35 of the Act from the first respondent/Commissioner of Police. It is also specifically stated in the counter that, "it is false to state that the petitioner and others were threatened to seal the premises. I submit that this respondent never threatened the petitioner as alleged by him." 5. It is also specifically stated in the counter that, "it is false to state that the petitioner and others were threatened to seal the premises. I submit that this respondent never threatened the petitioner as alleged by him." 5. On the basis of the abovesaid averments and counter averments of the parties, it has to be now decided that whether the respondents have authority to have a control over the petitioners' business of conducting mansions/guest houses by exercising powers under section 35 or 37 of the Act. 6. Section 35 of the Act reads as follows : "35. Eating houses, hotels, wine shops, fencing schools etc. to be licensed - No enclosed place or building shall be used as an eating house, coffee house, boarding-house, lodging-house, hotel, tavern, wine, beer or spirit shop, arrack or toddy shop, gymnasium or fencing school, or for the sale or consumption of any intoxicating drug or liquor, without a licence from the Commissioner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to the sale in reasonable quantities of any drug or substance for medical purpose only, or to any gymnasium or fencing school of any educational institution controlled or recognized by the State Government." Section 37 of the Act reads as follows : "37. Penalty for omission to procure licence as required by Section 34 or 35 : Whoever keeps or uses or permits to be kept or used any enclosed place or building requiring a licence, under section 34 or 35 without having obtained a licence as therein required, shall be liable on conviction to fine not exceeding fifty rupees for every day on which such place or building is so used." 7. Under the said provisions, if it is a boarding house or lodging house, the person conducting the same, should take licence from the Commissioner of Police, Chennai. If the licence is not procured as required under section 34 or 35 of the Act, whoever keeps or uses or permits to be kept or used any enclosed place or building, shall be liable on conviction to fine not exceeding Rs. 50/- for every day on which such place or building is so used. 8. On the basis of the provisions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have submitted that the mansions/guest houses cannot be construed as a "lodging house" as contemplated under section 35 of the Act. 50/- for every day on which such place or building is so used. 8. On the basis of the provisions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have submitted that the mansions/guest houses cannot be construed as a "lodging house" as contemplated under section 35 of the Act. So, the question of taking licence from the Commissioner will not arise. It is their further case that even if the petitioners have not obtained licence, the petitioners shall be made liable for conviction only in terms of Section 37 of the Act and the respondents cannot threaten the petitioners with the closure of buildings and sealing the same. In view of the specific averment in the counter that there was no such threat as alleged by the petitioners, I need not go into the averments made by the petitioners regarding the same. 9. The only question that has to be decided in the case is that whether the petitioners are liable to take licence under section 35 of the Act. As stated already, according to the petitioners, rooms in the buildings are leased out on monthly rent basis. They are not provided any food on payment. In some cases, the tourists have been accommodated on package system without collecting separate amount for their stay. On the basis of the above, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the mansions/guest houses cannot be treated as lodging houses so as to bring the same within the mischief of Section 35 of the Act. They have also relied on Section 3(21) of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939, in which, lodging house has been defined as follows : "3(21) : 'Lodging house' means a hotel a boarding house, a choultry, dharmasala or rest-house not maintained by the Government or a local authority, an unlicenced emigration depot, or any place where casual visitors are received and provided with sleeping accommodation, with or without food, on payment, but does not include - (a) a 'students' hostel under public or recognized control, or (b) a house licenced under section 125 for accommodating visitors a fair or festival, or (c) retiring rooms and rest-houses provided by a railway administration and normally used by passengers or railway servants or both." 10. On the basis of the abovesaid definition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have submitted that only if casual visitors are received and provided with sleeping accommodation with or without food, on payment, it should be construed as a lodging house. But, in the case of the petitioners, they have been leasing out the rooms in the premises on monthly rent basis and so, it cannot be construed as lodging houses. I am not able to accept the said submission. 11. The "guest-house" can be referred to a place where the guest of the owner is received and entertained present case, admittedly, the occupants are allowed to occupy only on payment and it is not the case of the petitioners that they have been allowed to stay gratuitously or at a concessional rate. I seek support for such conclusion from the judgment reported in Sri Durga Enterprises v. I.T.O., 1976 (102) ITR 745 : (1975 Tax LR 320), in which, it is held as follows at page 321 (of TLR) : "Hence, the expression "guest house" should not be treated as meaning a hotel where customers have to pay for the services rendered. It is reasonable to hold that it refers to a place where the guests of the assessee are received and entertained gratuitously or at a concessional rate." 12. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the definition made in Section 3(21) of Tamil Nadu Public Health Act that the persons who are staying are not casual visitors and so, the mansions/guest houses cannot be construed as lodging houses so as to enable the respondents to bring the petitioners under the scope of Section 35 of the Act, cannot be accepted. A 'casual visit' means a visit which cannot be defined as regular visit, which occurs with any fixed regularity or at uncertain intervals. So, from the above and also from the affidavit regarding the nature of business that the petitioners are doing, it is clear that the occupants in the mansions/guest houses can be construed only as casual visitors, as their stay is not permanent and not for any fixed period as in the case of tenants and so, the said definition of casual visit will also apply to the petitioners. Merely because the petitioners are allowing the occupants for longer time in the premises, it cannot be construed that the premises are not lodging houses. 13. 'Lodging houses' is the term applied to houses containing furnished apartments which are let out by the week or by the month, without meals. Where a house is under the direct control and supervision of the owners, rooms are furnished and attended to by them, and they or their servants retain the keys thereto, a person renting a room therein becomes a lodger, and not a tenant, since a 'lodging house' is none the less such because it contains furnished apartments that are let by the week or month. In this case, admittedly, the control with respect to the premises, was not given up by the Proprietor. If only such a control is given, the person who occupies can be construed as a tenant. In all other cases, it can be construed that the persons who are occupying the rooms can be construed only as lodgers. 14. From the above, it is clear that the building in question on the basis of the nature of business being conducted by the petitioners, cannot be construed other than lodging houses. So, the petitioners are liable to take licence under section 35 of the Act. So, it is for the petitioners to apply for licence to the Commissioner after complying with all the requirements. 15. When the respondents have come forward with the specific plea that the petitioners are not threatened to seal the premises or close the premises, the petitioners' apprehension regarding such threat cannot be accepted. 16. In view of the above findings, writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos. 3575, 3880 and 4756 of 1999 are closed. Petitions dismissed.