Oral Judgment:

1. Appellants are original plaintiffs and respondents are original defendants. Appellants are challenging the judgment and order passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay in Special Civil Suit No. 6405 of 1975 whereby the learned Judge of the City Civil Court was pleased to dismiss the suit filed by appellants.

2. Brief facts are as under:-

3. Appellants (hereinafter referred to for the sake of convenience as “plaintiffs’) filed Special Civil Suit No. 6405 of 1975 against respondents (hereinafter referred to for the sake of convenience as “defendants”), seeking decree against defendants for eviction from the suit premises on the ground that they are trespassers, secondly, for damages to the tune of Rs 8,500/- and, thirdly, for mesne profit @ Rs 500/- per month for their illegal occupation of the said structures.

4. The Bombay Port Trust is the owner of the land bearing Survey Nos.11/671 and 12/671 of Margaon Division admeasuring about 1950 sq. yards. It is an admitted position that the Bombay Port Trust has leased out the said land to M/s Kothari Saw Mills (For short “KSM”) who had, when they were in possession of the said land, erected some structures on the said land. The structure shown with block “D” and demarcated by words “WXYZ” in Exhibit-A annexed to the plaint is the subject matter of the suit. It is the case of plaintiffs that KSM accumulated arrears towards the lease rent and, as such, the lease was transferred from KSM to plaintiffs on/or about 01/11/1970 and, therefore, plaintiffs stepped into the shoes of KSM. According to plaintiffs, defendants were permitted by KSM to store their excess goods in the suit premises marked “D” as licensees. According to plaintiffs, the room above the suit premises marked “D-1” with staircase from premises “D” was previously used by KSM and after 1/11/1970 by plaintiffs. According to plaintiffs, there was one opening door for both the premises “D” and “D-1”. According to defendants access to the suit premises was through two doors; one was used by defendants and the other by plaintiffs. It is the case of defendants that they had independent access to the suit premises. According to plaintiffs, they had asked defendants to remove their goods since their license had come to an end. After the interest of KSM ceased in the premises, defendants claimed to be the tenants of KSM.

5. On 09/05/1971, there was a big fire on the property and most of the structures, including the suit premises “D” and “D-1” were destroyed. Plaintiffs, thereafter, filed suit No. 3893 of 1971. According to plaintiffs, though an interim order was passed in the said suit restraining defendants from storing their goods, they continued to do so and, as such, plaintiffs filed a comprehensive suit i.e present S.C. Suit No. 6405 of 1975 on the ground that defendants have no legal right and were illegally using and occupying the suit premises as trespassers and, therefore, they were liable to be evicted from the suit premises.

6. Defendants have filed their Written Statement in which they claimed that KSM had let out the suit premises to them on monthly rent of Rs 75/- and it was alleged that KSM had taken deposit of Rs 6500/- and issued receipt dated 9/1/1968. They also claimed that plaintiffs had granted them leave and license for storing and they had become statutory licensees. Defendants also relied on 16 receipts claimed to be issued by KSM during 1966 to 1970 as rent receipts. Trial Court recorded evidence of P.W.1, D.W.1, D.W.2, D.W.3 and D.W.4. Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by plaintiffs.

7. Mr. Sawant, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellants made following submissions:-

(1) Firstly, he submitted that Bombay City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try issue Nos. 4 and 6. Secondly, he submitted that in view of section 4(1) and & 4(4)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (For short “Bombay Rent Act) provisions of the Rent Act are n