JUDGMENT - (1) This is a revision application under Section 115 opf the Code of Civil Procedure by defendants 1 and 5 from the judgment of the City Civil Court, Bombay, holding on preliminary issues that it has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit andthat the subject matter of the suit is properly valued. I am concerned in his revision application with two questions only; one, whether by reason of the provisions contained in Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), the City Civil Court has jurisidctiion to entertain and try the suit and two, whether the subject matter of the suit is properly valued. Questions arising out of the three other preliminary issues were not canvassed before me.

(2) Suit No. 6171 of 1964 has been filed in the City Civil Court by three plaintiffs who are respondents 1 to 3 to this revision application. The plaintiffs are in occupation of three shops which have a peculiar situation. A cinema theatre called Kohinoor Cinema, is situated on the Ranade Road, Dadar, Bombay, and the three shops of which the plaintiffs claim to be tenants are a part of those premises. The inner enclosure of the theatre does not about on the Ranade Road, but a narrow passage leading to the enclosure abuts on that road. The shop run by respondent 1 has an opening on the Ranade Road but the shop of respondents and 3 open out into the passage only. In order to reach the theatre, one has to pass necessarily through this passage. The case of the plaintiff is that the proprietors of the Kohinoor Cinema and those claiming under them are conducting their business in a manner which is calculated to cause obstruction to their business. The obstruction is stated to be of this nature: for a long time, according to the plaintiffs, the booking offices of the cinema theatre were so situated that the formation of the queues of cinemagoers would not occupy a part of the passage. The position of the current and advance booking offices has been, however, changed by the managment of the theatre with the result that queues are mostly formed in the passage. The queues are alleged to last for along time causing serious interference with the business of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff No. 3 conducts a foot-wear shop and his case is that he has of necessity to serve his customers in the passage, because no other space is available to him for that purpose. The formation of long and unending queues in the passage of about 8 feet width is stated to prevent him from serving his customers. He and the other plaintiffs therefore ask for an injunction retraining the defendant s from permitting the formation of queues in the passage. The other reliefs sought by the plaintiffs partake essentially of the character of this main relief and flow from it.

(3) Defendant No. 1 to the suit is the manager of the Kohinoor Cinema, defendant No. 2 is the original owner of the theatre, defendant NO. 3 is stated to be the present owner of the theatre and defendants Nos. 5 and 6 are the lessees of the Kohinoor Cinema. Defendant No. 4,. A formal party, was subsequently deleted from the suit.

(4) Defendants Nos. 3, 5 and 6 contended, in so far as is material for the present purposes, that the suit was essentially between landlords and tenants, that it related to possession of the premises alleged to have been let out to the tenants, that it raises claims or questions arising out of the Act or out of some of its provisons and, therefore, the Court of Small Causes, Greater Bombay was exclusively entitled to entertain and try the suit. In a word, it was contended by these defendants that by reason of the provisions contained in Section 28 of the Act, the City Civil Court has no urisdiction to try the suit. It was capable of being valued in terms of money and therefore, the plaintiffs were in error in paying fixed Court-fees on the plaint.

(5) The learned trial Judge raised five preliminary issues, but, as stated earli

Click Here to Read the rest of this document