The next argument of Mr. Gokhale was that even though cl. 8 uses the expression "buildinl! of every description howsoever", the real purpose for which the lease was taken by the lessees was to construct structures for residence. In support of his argument he relied on cl. 2 ( c) of the lease which permits the Jessee< to take construction loans from prospective tenants of the buildings to be erected by the lessees and urged that since under s. 18 ( 3) the only construction loans permitted are for financing the construction of residential buildings, the purpose of the lease must necessarily be for erecting residential building or buildings only. This argument also cannot be upheld, firstly, because the operation of cl. 2(c) relied on by Mr. Gokhale does not deal with nor is concerned with the purpose for which the land was leased, and secondly, because the question of taking construction loans can rise only if the lessees were to decide to put up building or buildings for residential purposes and not otherwise, as s. 18(3) of the Act permits advances from tenants for constructing such buildings only. Cl. 2 ( c) in the lease was put in the Indenture to provide for such a contingency and as an exception to the covem: ;t against the lessees mortgagig. charging or assigning the demised land and/or the buildings which may be erected thereon, and not for laying down the purpose for which the land was demised. It is, therefore, neither right nor proper to construe the purpose of a lease by depending upon such an exception to a covenant restricting the lessees from mortgaging, charging or assigning the land or the buildings which might be put up thereon. There is, therefore, no reason to hold that because s. 18(3) permits construction loans in respect of residential buildings only, it must follow that the purpose of the lease must be held to be one for erecting residential buildings.
