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 th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document