SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Bom) 45

High Court of Judicature at Bombay
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR
Pradeep Babubhai Chinai & Another
Versus
Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Limited
Writ Petition No. 5148 of 1993
Decided on : 12-01-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants :Dinyar Madon, Sr. Counsel i/b. M/s. Malvi Ranchoddas & Co. Advocates. For the Respondent:R1, U.J. Makhija, Sr. Counsel i/b. Amin Kherada, Advocate.

Headnote:Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (1971), Ss.2(e), 2(i) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act (1947), Ss.4, 14, 15:- The Public Premises Act passed by the Central Government will override all the provisions of the Rent Control Act passed by the State Government as for as the public premises are concerned like premises owned by the Government or Companies and Corporations and hence the tenants therein can not claim any protection there under.

Judgment :

This Writ Petition takes exception to the Judgement and order dated 21st June, 1993 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Appeal No. 377/1992. The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court in turn confirmed the view taken by the Trial Court vide Judgement and Order dated 24th November, 1992 below Interim Notice No. 369/1992 holding that the Court had no jurisdiction to try and entertain the subject suit in view of the fact that the suit premises are governed by the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as P.P.Act).

2. The relevant facts to examine the question regarding jurisdiction of the Court are as follows. The Punjab National Bank, a Public Corporation, is the owner of the building in which the suit premises are situated on the second floor of the building known as PNB House. The first Respondent is a tenant of the said Bank in respect of the premises on the second floor of PNB House. Out of the said premises in occupation of the first Respondent as tenant, portion thereof, admeasuring about 800 sq. feet, was allegedly let out to the predecessor of the Petitioners (one Babubhai M. Chinai) as subtenant thereof, sometime in 1966. It is the case of the Petitioners-Plaintiffs that the said arrangement was arrived at after taking approval of the Bank (the owners). The said Babubhai died on 4th July, 1975 leaving a Will wherein he appointed his widow Ashrumati B. Chinai and his sons-the Petitioners, as Executors thereof. It is stated that the said three persons were also the heirs/legal representatives of Babubhai. It is the case of the Petitioners-Plalintiffs that after the death of Babubhai, first Respondent was pressurising the said Ashrumati and the Petitioners to vacate the suit premises and also stopped accepting rent. In the circumstances, said Ashrumati and the Petitioners filed a Declaratory Suit being RAE Declatory Suit No. 5453/1975 for the following reliefs.

"(a) That it be declared that the Plaintiffs are the lawful sub-tenants or in any event protected Licensees in respect of the premises admeasuring 300 sq.ft.on the 2nd floor of PNB House, formerly known as Karimji House, situated at Sir Phirozeshah Mehta Road, Bombay Land more particularly shown in Pink wash and the sketch plan Ex.B hereto annexed and are fully protected under the provisions of the Bombay Act, 57 of 1947 ;

(b) that the Defendants, their servants and/or agents be permanently restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court from changing the common lock on the main gate leading to the respective premises of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants and/or from barring the entry of the Plaintiffs, their servants and agents into the said premises of the Plaintiffs and/or from trespassing, encroaching or entering upon the said premises described in prayer (a) above or any part or portion thereof or bringing any third person on the said premises or any part or portion thereof or from doing any act, deed or thing so as to disturb or interfere in any manner whatsoever with the quiet and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said premises described in prayer (a) above by the Plaintiffs as lawful subtenants or protected licensees of the said premises described in prayer (a) above ;

(c) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the above suit, the Defendants, their servants and/or agents be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court from changing the common lock on the main gate leading to the respective premises of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants and/or from barring the entry of the Plaintiffs, their servants and agents into the said premises of the Plaintiffs and/or from trespassing, encroaching or entering upon the said premises described in prayer (a) above or any part or portion thereof or bringing any third person on the said premises or any part or portion thereof or from doing any act, deed or thing so as to disturb









































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top