JUDGMENT - AGARWAL ASHOK, J.:—The petitioner is the original defendant and the respondent is original plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, I will describe the parties with their nomenclature in the trial Court. The plaintiff filed in the Court of Small Causes R.A.D. Suit No. 4030 of 1986 for a declaration that he is tenant in respect of the suit premises. He prayed for a decree for possession. It is undisputed that the defendant has encroached upon Government land and has constructed a structure which includes the suit premises. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was in possession as a tenant and was forcibly dispossessed by the defendant. Hence he filed the aforesaid suit for declaration and possession. In the suit the plaintiff took out an Injunction Notice bearing No. 4844 of 1986. The defendant resisted the said notice on grounds inter alia that the suit premises are not governed by the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to Rent Act) and hence the Court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. By a judgment and order dated 3rd April, 1990 the trial Court held that the Rent is not applicable to the suit premises and hence the Court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Consequent upon the said findings, the plaint was ordered to be returned for presentation to the proper Court.

2-3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the plaintiff preferred before the Appellate Court of Small Causes Appeal No. 284 of 1990. In the said appeal, the plaintiff took out Interim Notice bearing No. 3312 of 1990. By a judgment and order dated 13th February, 1991 the Appellate Court of the Small Causes held that the suit premises were governed by the Bombay Rent Act. It therefore directed the trial Court to decide the plaintiff's injunction notice No. 4844 of 1986 on its own merits. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the defendant has preferred the present petition.

4. The short question that arises for my consideration is whether the Bombay Rent Act applies to the suit premises i.e. a building which has been constructed unauthorisedly on Government land. As stated earlier the defendant is a squatter and has constructed the instant structure on Government land unauthorisedly and the issue on which the parties are at idem is whether, the said premises are governed by the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act.

5. The relevant provisions for deciding the above question are section 4(1) and section 4(4)(a) and the same may be reproduced :

“4(1) This Act shall not apply to any premises belonging to the Government or a local authority or apply as against the Government to any tenancy (licence) or other like relationship created by a grant from (or a licence given by) the Government in respect of premises (requisitioned or taken on lease or on licence) by the Government, including any premises taken on behalf of the Government on the basis of tenancy (or of licence or other like relationship by, or in the name of officer subordinate to the Government authorised in this behalf;) but it shall apply in respect of (premises let, or given on licence, to) the Government or a local authority (or taken on behalf of the Government on such basis by, or in the name of, such officer).”

“4(4)(a) The expression “premises belonging to the Government or a local authority” in sub-section (1) shall notwithstanding anything contained in the said sub-section or in any judgment, decree or order of a Court, not include a building erected or any land held by any person from the Government or a local authority under an agreement, lease (licence) or other grant, although having regard to the provisions of such agreement, lease (licence) or grant the building so erected may belong or continue to belong to the Government or the local authority, as the case may be; and.”

6. It is to be noted that section 4(4)(a) was incorporated in the Rent Act by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document