Back
1973 Supreme(Bom) 107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(G.N. Vaidya J.)
SHANTILAL KALIDAS SHAH and others - Appellants
Versus
LALLUBHAI TALAKCHAND and another - Respondents
Advocates appeared
For appellants – S.C. Chagla.
For respondents - R.W. Adik and S.C. Pratap with N.V. Adhia.
The City Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain any claim or question arising out of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, or any of its provisions, even if the dispute is between two persons who both claim to be tenants of the suit premises.
Headnote:
JURISDICTION - BOMBAY RENT ACT - SECTION 28 - SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF REVOCATION OF LEAVE AND LICENCE AND FOR POSSESSION - WHETHER CITY CIVIL COURT HAS JURISDICTION - WHETHER QUESTIONS ARISING OUT OF THE ACT - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 28.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Bombay, seeking a declaration that the leave and license granted to the defendants was revoked and that the defendants were trespassers, an order for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to vacate the suit premises, and an injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing on the premises. The defendants resisted the suit, claiming that they were the tenants of the suit premises and that the plaintiffs were licensees.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the City Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the questions arising in the suit were questions arising out of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, and therefore fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the special court constituted under section 28 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the City Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 2. Whether the questions arising in the suit were questions arising out of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, bars the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court to entertain any claim or question arising out of the Act or any of its provisions. 2. The real dispute between the parties was as to whether the plaintiffs were the tenants of the suit premises or the defendants were the tenants. This was a question which could be decided only under the Bombay Rent Act, having regard to the definition of the words ''landlord'' and "tenant" in that Act. 3. The fact that the plaintiffs claimed to have been in possession as tenants did not take the suit outside the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, but the real dispute between the parties as to whether the plaintiffs were the tenants or the defendants were the tenants, showed that the questions were questions which arose out of the Rent Act and fell within the ambit of section 28 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree passed by the City Civil Court, and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.
2. The allegations in the plaint may be briefly summarised as follows:
The suit premises consist of two rooms, one room admeasuring 12' x 15' and another admeasuring 10’ x 10' on the 3rd floor of a building known as "Zaveri Bhuvan" situate at 21-A, Second Agiary Lane, Bombay-3. Plaintiff No. 1 Lallubhai Talakchand was carrying on business in the name and style of Jayantilal Shantilal and Company in the said premises in or about 1.943. Defendant No. 1 Shantilal Kalidas Shah is the son of the brother of plaintiff No.1. The business was continued by plaintiff No. 1 upto about 1945. Thereafter in 1945, the name of the business was changed to Lallubhai Talakchand and Company and the business win done in that name upto 1951. The rent was paid by Lallubhai, plaintiff No. 1. In the year 1951 the name of the business was again changed to Dahyalal Lallaubhai and Company and plaintiff No. 1 admitted certain other persons as partners in the business. That partnership firm is plaintiff No.2. It is registered under the Indian Partnership Act.
3. It was alleged that defendant No. 1 was helping plaintiff No.1 in his business. He was sleeping, with plaintiff No. 1's permission, at night in the store room of the premises till 1950 when he acquired a suitable residential block at Zaveri Bhuvan, Nariman Road, Vile Parle. Since that time, defendant No. 1 has been residing at Vile Parle at the said address. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the brothers of defendant No. 1. They too were sleeping in' the store-room with plaintiff No.1's permission. Defendants Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 subsequently started staying in the store-room.
4. On September 29, 1959, all the defendants physically prevented plaintiff No. 1's son Jayantilal from entering the premises. They assaulted him. Thereafter plaintiff No. 1 and his son made several attempts to settle the matter amicably and to persuade the defendants to adopt a reasonable attitude. It was of no avail. In the second week of November, the defendants threatened plaintiff No. 1 that nobody would be allowed to enter even the office room in which the business was carried on. The defendants trespassed into the office room. It is alleged in plaint para. 6 :
"The plaintiffs submit that the defendant No.1 was given permission to occupy the said premises only as a licensee. The defendant No. 1 has now gone to Vile Parle as stated above. The defendants No.2 and No.3 were also given permission by the plaintiffs to stay in the said store room. The defendants Nos. 3 to 7 have been brought in by the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 as the stated above. The leave and licence and the permission granted to the first defendant and/or the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 have been revoked and withdrawn after which the occupation of the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 is only as trespassers. The defendants Nos. 3 to 7 are also trespassers and have no right to continue on the premises. The plaintiffs submit that in any event leave and licence and/or permission granted to the defendants or any of them is hereby revoked and they and each of them are now trespasser
