The annual value at rack rent for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act is the gross rent payable by the tenant to the landlord, and not the license fees paid by a sub-tenant to the tenant.

1. This is a revision application under the provision of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order dated 30th April 1964 passed by a Judge of the Bombay Small Causes Court dismissing the petitioners ejectment application field under the provisions of Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act on the ground that the annual value of the premises at rack rent exceeds Rs. 3,000 and, therefore, the Bombay Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to entertain, try and determine the said application.

2. The petitioners are the tenants of a godown on the ground floor of Botawala building at Narshi Natha Street, Bombay 9, at a rental of Rs. 188 per mensem. By an agreement dated 27th October 1960, the petitioners granted leave and licence to the respondents to use and occupy a portion of the said godown at a licence fee of Rs. 260 per mensem. The petitioners claim to have terminated the said leave and licence and have filed an application under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act in the Bombay Small Causes Court to evict the respondents from the said portion of their premises.

3. The respondents contended that the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to entertain, try and determine the application. It was contended by them that they were in law tenants and were paying Rs. 260 per mensem, i.e. Rs. 3,120 per annum. Under S. 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, an application for possession of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, an application for possession of immoveable property can only be filed in the Small Causes Court when annual value at a rack rent does not exceed Rs. 3000.

4. The learned Judge held that the expression "rack rent" meant the rent raised to the uttermost or the full annual benefit of the property which, in this case, for the part of the premises in the occupation of the respondents was Rupees 3,120. The learned Judge held that the application was, therefore, not maintainable under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act and he dismissed the said application. The petitioners have come in revision against the said order.

5. Now , Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act provides as under:

"When any person has had possession of any immoveable property situate within the local limits of the Small Cause Courts jurisdiction and of which the annual value at a rack-rent does not exceed Rs.3000/-, as the tenant, or by permission, of another person, or of some person through whom such other person claims,

xx xx xx xx xx xx

such other person (hereinafter called the applicant) may apply to the Small Cause Court for a summons against the occupant, calling upon him to show cause, on a day therein appointed, why he should not be compelled to deliver up the property."

6. Whether the Bombay Small Cause Court would have jurisdiction to entertain this application depends, therefore, upon the interpretation of the expression "annual value at a rack rent" occurring in Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. No decision of any Indian High Court has been cited before me in which this expression has been interpreted. If what the respondents are paying to the petitioners for the part of the premises in the respondents occupation is taken into consideration the amount will be Rs. 3,120 and the Small Cause Court will have no jurisdiction, but if what is paid by the petitioners to their own landlord, who is the owner of the premises, viz. Rs. 188 per mensem in respect of the entire premises in the occupation of the petitioners is taken into consideration, the annual rent will be Rupees 2,256 and if this is the annual value at a have jurisdiction. In this is the annual value at a rack rent, the Small Cause Court will have jurisdiction. In this is the annual value at a have jurisdiction. In this case only a part of the premises let to the petitioners having been given to the respondents, the annual rent of the part will be even less than Rs. 2,256. But I