1982 Supreme(Bom) 120

Bombay High Court
SUJATA V.MANOHAR
Purshottam Vishindas Raheja - Appellant
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India - Respondent
Decided On : 04/02/1982

The Court of Small Causes alone has jurisdiction to entertain and try any suit or proceedings between a landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises and to decide any application made under that Act and to deal with any claim or question arising out of the Act or any of its provisions.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - O.7, R.11 - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - JURISDICTION - BOMBAY RENT ACT, 1947 - S.28 - RECEIVER - APPOINTMENT - POSSESSION - RIGHT TO.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, the Karta and Manager of a Joint Hindu Family, entered into an agreement with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Defendant No.1) for the purchase of the suit property. The property consisted of several structures, some of which were used as a cinema studio. One T. Tarachand was a tenant of the Life Insurance Corporation in respect of the said entire property including the said Studio. T. Tarachand died on or about 18th September 1972. Defendants 2 to 8 are his surviving heirs and legal representatives. They claim tenancy rights in respect of the said property as the heirs of the deceased tenant. Defendant No.9, Roop Tara Studios, is a partnership firm in which originally T. Tarachand was a partner. The said partnership firm claims that the tenancy rights of the said immovable property were held for the benefit of the partnership. One N.L. Mehta Cinema Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. is defendant No.10. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale against defendant No.1 and sought a declaration that the agreements entered into between defendants 2 to 9 on the one hand and defendant No.10 on the other hand are null and void and asked for a cancellation of these agreements. They asked for a declaration that defendants 2 to 9 are not in actual or symbolic occupation or possession of the suit property. They also asked for a declaration that defendant No.10 has no right, title or interest in respect of the suit property and is a trespasser and have asked for possession of the premises from the defendant No.10. The present notice of motion is taken out by the plaintiff for the appointment of a receiver of the said immovable property, especially of the studio premises and for other reliefs set out in the motion.

Finding of the Court:

1. The Court held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit as against defendants 2 to 10 in view of the provisions of S.28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act). 2. The Court held that the suit against defendants Nos.2 to 10 is not covered by the provisions of S.28 of the Bombay Rent Act. 3. The Court held that the plaint discloses a cause of action against defendants Nos.2 to 10 and that the suit cannot be dismissed at the stage of the notice of motion. 4. The Court held that a Receiver should not be appointed of the said property as the plaintiff does not have a present right to possession of the premises. 5. The Court granted an injunction restraining defendants 2 to 10 from in any manner disposing of, alienating, encumbering, inducting any third party or creating or recognising any right in favour of any third party in respect of the property described in Exhibit "A" to the plaint or parting with possession thereof or any part thereof. 6. The Court also restrained defendants 2 to 10 from altering the condition of the property described in Exhibit "A"' to the plaint or any part thereof. 7. The Court further restrained defendant No.10 his servants and agents from parting with the possession of the said premises or any part thereof in favour of defendants Nos.2 to 9 or any of them. 8. The Court also restrained defendants 2 to 10, their servants and agents from executing a deed of assignment pursuant to the agreement in question entered into between them.

Issues: 1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit as against defendants 2 to 10 in view of the provisions of S.28 of the Bombay Rent Act? 2. Whether the suit against defendants Nos.2 to 10 is covered by the provisions of S.28 of the Bombay Rent Act? 3. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action against defendants Nos.2 to 10? 4. Whether a Receiver should be appointed of the said property? 5. Whether an injunction should be granted restraining defendants 2 to 10 from in any manner disposing of, alienating, encumbering, inducting any third party or creating or recognising any right in favour of any third party in respect of the property described in Exhibit "A" to the plaint or parting with possession thereof or any part thereof?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit as against defendants 2 to 10 in view of the provisions of S.28 of the Bombay Rent Act, as the claim of the plaintiff against defendants 2 to 10 is not a claim arising out of the Bombay Rent Act and its provisions. 2. The Court held that the suit against defendants Nos.2 to 10 is not covered by the provisions of S.28 of the Bombay Rent Act, as the claim of the plaintiff is in trespass and not a claim between a landlord and a tenant. 3. The Court held that the plaint discloses a cause of action against defendants Nos.2 to 10, as the plaintiff has claimed reliefs against defendant No.10 on the ground that they are trespassers and have no right, title or interest in the suit premises. 4. The Court held that a Receiver should not be appointed of the said property as the plaintiff does not have a present right to possession of the premises. 5. The Court granted an injunction restraining defendants 2 to 10 from in any manner disposing of, alienating, encumbering, inducting any third party or creating or recognising any right in favour of any third party in respect of the property described in Exhibit "A" to the plaint or parting with possession thereof or any part thereof, as the plaintiff is entitled to some protection in respect of the property which he has agreed to purchase so that his rights may be protected in the event of his succeeding in the suit.

Final Decision: The Court passed the following order: Defendants 2 to 10, their servants and agents are restrained from in any manner disposing of alienating, encumbering, inducting any third party or creating or recognising any right in favour of any third party in respect of the property described in Exhibit "A" to the plaint or parting with possession thereof or any part thereof. Defendants 2 to 10, their servants and agents are also restrained from altering the condition of the property described in Exhibit "A"' to the plaint or any part thereof. Defendant No.10 his servants and agents are further restrained from parting with the possession of the said premises or any part thereof in favour of defendants Nos.2 to 9 or any of them. Defendants 2 to 10, their servants and agents are restrained further from executing a deed of assignment pursuant to the agreement in question entered into between them. The undertaking given by defendants 2 to 10 on 22nd Sept. 1981 is vacated. Ad interim orders to continue till 15th June 1982. The receiver to make an inventory in respect of the property Exhibit "A" to the plaint including the goods lying in the studio premises and to prepare a list of all persons in occupation of the property Exhibit "A". Inventory to be made by the Court Receiver immediately by removing the seal of the studio premises and re-fixing the same after the inventory is completed. Ad interim orders to stand vacated on 15th June 1982 and the Receiver to remove her seal forthwith thereafter. Mr. Parekh learned counsel for the defendants 2 to 10 applies that the plaintiff should deposit in court a sum at Rs. 28,12,500 which, according to him is the balance purchase price payable in respect of the agreement for sale. Mr. Amin, learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the balance purchase price of Rs. 23,12,500 has been deposited by the plaintiffs with their attorneys M/s. Bachubhai Munim and Co. In view of this statement application rejected. Costs to be costs in the cause. Ordered accordingly.