SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
31st March, 1958
B.P. SINHA, JAFFER IMAM AND K. SUBBA RAO, JJ.
Babulal Bhuramal and another, Appellants
Versus
Nandram Shivram and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 84 of 1957.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate, with him), for Appellants; Mr. Purshotam Tricumdas, Senior Advocate (Mr. C. P. Lal, Advocate, with him). For Respondents.
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Jurisdiction of Courts - Suit for possession of premises - Whether City Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain suit - Interpretation of Ss. 28 and 29A.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a suit in the City Civil Court, claiming that they were tenants of the premises in question and were entitled to protection under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (the Act). The defendants, who were the landlords of the premises, contended that the appellants were not tenants and were liable to be evicted. The City Civil Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit but dismissed it on the merits. The High Court, on appeal, held that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the City Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Court interpreted Ss. 28 and 29A of the Act and held that a suit for possession of premises to which the provisions of the Act apply can only be entertained by the Courts specified in S. 28, which are the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) having jurisdiction in the area in which the premises are situate, and the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) having ordinary jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether the City Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the suit filed by the appellants was a suit relating to possession of premises to which the provisions of the Act apply and that the claim of the appellants was one which arose out of the Act or any of its provisions. Therefore, the suit could only be entertained by the Courts specified in S. 28 of the Act and the City Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
Judgment
JAFER IMAM J. : The sole question considered and decided by the High Court was whether the suit filed by the appellants in the City Civil Court could be entertained by that Court, having regard to the provisions of S. 28, Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The High Court was of the opinion that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It did not pronounce any opinion on the merits of the appellants case. The only question which requires consideration in this appeal is whether the High Court correctly decided that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the appellants.
2. The first plaintiff in the suit before the City Civil Court , was a tenant of the premises in question under the first defendant. The second and third plaintiffs were persons to whom the said premises were sublet by the first plaintiff. The first defendant as landlord of the premises in suit gave notice to quit to the first plaintiff on 6th December 1947. Thereafter, he filed suit No. 483/4400 of 1948 in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay on 29th April 1948, where by he sought to evict the first plaintiff. To that suit the first defendant also made the second and the third plaintiffs parties alleging that they were trespassers and had no right to be on the premises. The Small Cause Court held that the second and third plaintiffs were not lawful subtenants and the subletting by the first plaintiff to them being contrary to law the latter had deprived himself of the protection of the Act. It accordingly passed a decree for eviction of all the plaintiffs of the present suit. An appeal against the decree was unsuccessful and a revisional application to the High Court of Bombay was summarily dismissed by that Court. Thereafter, the present suit No. 2178 of 1954 was filed by the appellants in the Bombay City Civil Court on 20th September 1954. In this suit the appellants prayed for a declaration that the first plaintiff was a tenant of the defendants and was entitled to protection under the Act and that the second and the third plaintiffs were lawful subtenants of the first plaintiff and were entitled to possession, use and occupation of the premises as subtenants thereof. The City Civil Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit but dismissed the suit on the ground that there had been no lawful subletting by the first plaintiff of the premises to the second and the third plaintiffs as the provisions of S. 10 , Bombay Rents,, Hotel Rates and Lodging House Rates, (Control) Act, 1944 (Bombay Act No. VII of 1944) (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rents Act, 1944) had not been properly complied with. Against that decision the appellants appealed to the Bombay High Court which was dismissed. The High Court disagreed with the view of the Judge of the City Civil Court that he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit but did not record any decision on the merits of the appellants case.
3. The preamble of the Act states that it was expedient to amend and consolidate the law relating to the control of rents and repairs of certain premises, of rates of hotels and lodging houses and of evictions. The entire provisions of the Act read as a whole show that the Act was passed to achieve that purpose. The Act defines "landlord" to mean
"any person who is for the time being, receiving or entitled to receive, rent in respect of any premises whether on his own account or on account or on behalf, or for the benefit of any other person or as a trustee, guardian, or receiver for any other person or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent if the premises were let to a tenant; and includes any person not being a tenant who from time to time derives title under a landlord; and further includes in respect of his subtenant a tenant who has sublet any premises"
And "tenant" to mean
"any person by whom or on whose account rent is
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.