Would you rewire it?

[goldstar]

I'm with Roger. I would leave it as is. I've lost count of the amount of times I've been asked to install an under-cab light on an outside kitchen wall with no access from the basement. I've snaked a # 12 into the nearest JB and converted the receptacle into a switch over receptacle or a switch over GFCI.

 

[Strathead]

I don't see it as ambiguous at all.
If it supplies receptacle outlets in the listed areas it shall not supply other outlets. That means on non-receptacle outlets anywhere and no receptacle outlets in other non-listed areas. If the receptacle outlets happen to supply lighting, I do not see a problem. If the lighting is hard wired, then it would be prohibited.

There are easy ways to specifically state any of the alternatives you suggested, so I am willing to accept the perfectly clear common English sentence structure as meaning exactly what it says.

What I would do for my own house is not necessarily what I would take responsibility for at a customer's house.

100% It clearly states receptacle outlets and the clearly forbids other outlets. How convenient that 480sparky "agrees to disagree." It is like agreeing to disagree that the sky is blue.

 

[jumper]

I would leave it as is.

Roger

Yep.

 

[newservice]

the 1940 code as the OP posts it is quite clear..circuit that supplies receptacle outlets...shall not supply other outlets. So his light would be a violation of that. That said, Im with the crowd that would leave it as is.
What is interesting is that the 1940 code actually says that. That's kind of hard to believe. Not saying it doesn't, just...wow...how many old kitchens have we all seen where the light is on with the plugs.

 

[electricguy61]

I understand the thought behind the requirement, but in reality even a few fluorescent under counter lights, or even a couple of 60 watt lights aren't going to really affect a 20 amp circuit. I would leave it alone.