Back
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
G.S. GODBOLE
Hussainali Sharif Punjwani & Others
Versus
The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 193 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 217 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 694 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 996 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9124 OF 2010
Decided on: 18-01-2012
The word "entertain" used in Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 means "consideration of merits of the Suit" or "the date of framing of issues in the Suit".
Fact of the Case:
The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay (BPT) filed suits for eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (P.P. Act). The suits were filed at different times, some before and some after the amendment of the Act in 1980, which extended its applicability to the premises of the BPT. The amendment also created a special tribunal for eviction proceedings. The question arose whether the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits filed by the BPT, given that the P.P. Act barred civil courts from entertaining such suits.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the word "entertain" in Section 15 of the P.P. Act means "consideration of merits of the Suit" or "the date of framing of issues in the Suit". The Court found that the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits filed by the BPT before the amendment of the Act in 1980, as there was no special tribunal available at that time. However, the Court held that the Small Causes Court lost jurisdiction to entertain the suits filed after the amendment, as the special tribunal was established on 22nd September 1989.
Issues: 1. Whether the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits filed by the BPT before the amendment of the P.P. Act in 1980? 2. Whether the Small Causes Court lost jurisdiction to entertain the suits filed by the BPT after the amendment of the P.P. Act in 1980?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits filed by the BPT before the amendment of the P.P. Act in 1980, as there was no special tribunal available at that time. The Court relied on the principle that a court cannot be deprived of its jurisdiction unless there is an express provision to that effect in the statute. The Court also noted that the P.P. Act did not provide for the transfer of pending suits from the Small Causes Court to the special tribunal. 2. The Court held that the Small Causes Court lost jurisdiction to entertain the suits filed by the BPT after the amendment of the P.P. Act in 1980, as the special tribunal was established on 22nd September 1989. The Court found that the word "entertain" in Section 15 of the P.P. Act means "consideration of merits of the Suit" or "the date of framing of issues in the Suit". The Court held that the Small Causes Court could not be said to have entertained the suits filed after the establishment of the special tribunal, as it had not yet considered the merits of the suits or framed issues in the suits.
Final Decision: The Court held that the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits filed by the BPT before the amendment of the P.P. Act in 1980, but lost jurisdiction to entertain the suits filed after the amendment.
1. Since a common question of law has arisen in all these Civil Revision Applications and the Writ Petition, all these matters were clubbed together and by consent of the respective Advocates appearing for the parties, the question of law arising in all these matters is being decided by this common Judgment. In all these matters the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay (hereinafter referred to as “the BPT” for short) is the Respondent and all Civil Revision Applications and Writ Petition arise out of the original Suits filed by the said Respondent.
QUESTION OF LAW :
2. The question of law involved in all these matters is whether the Decrees passed by the Court of Small Causes in favour of the Respondent-Port Trust are nullities, having been passed by the Court suffering from inherent lack of jurisdiction on account of the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the P.P. Act, 1971).
FACTS IN CRA NO. 193/2011 :
3. The Respondent–BPT filed L.E.& C. Suit No. 427/594/1979 under the provisions of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as “P. S. C. C. Act, 1882” for short). The Suit was decreed on 7th March, 1990 and the Decree was put in execution. The Applicant/Petitioner obstructed the execution; as a result of which the BPT filed Obstructionist Notice No.41/94. The said Obstructionist Notice was allowed by the Trial Court on 25th January, 2000. Aggrieved by this order, the Applicant/Petitioner filed Appeal No. 454/2000 which was dismissed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes on 25.11.2010. Aggrieved by this order CRA No. 193/2011 has been filed.
FACTS IN CRA NO 217/2011 :
4. BPT had filed LE & C. Suit No. 48/48/1986 in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai under the provisions of P. S. C. C. Act, 1882 for possession. The said Suit was decreed exparte on 1st March, 1993. The Decree was sought to be executed and was obstructed by the Applicant; as a result of which BPT filed Obstructionist Notice No. 33/2005. By the Judgment and Order dated 14.01.2011, the said Obstructionist Notice was allowed. Aggrieved by this order, the Applicant filed Appeal No. 4/2011, which was dismissed on 14.02.2011, leading to the filing of CRA No. 217/2011.
FACTS IN CRA NO 996/2010 :
5. On 25th November, 1980, the BPT had filed LE & C. Suit No. 491/620/1980 in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai under section 41 of the P. S. C. C. Act, 1882. The said Suit was decreed on 28th July, 1989, passing a Decree for possession. The Defendant filed Appeal No. 530/1989 in which a Cross Objection was filed by the BPT. By the Judgment and Order dated 07.08.2009, the said Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court, leading to the filing of CRA No. 996/2010.
FACTS IN W.P. NO. 9124 /2010 :
6. The BPT had filed LE & C. Suit No. 412/577/1979 in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai under section 41 of the P. S. C. C. Act, 1882 for possession. The said Suit was decreed on 21st March, 1997 and the decree for possession was passed and the execution thereof was obstructed on 22.09.1998, leading to the filing of Obstructionist Notice No. 61/98. Issues were framed in the said Notice and the Notice was allowed on 18.01.2008. The Petitioner filed Misc. Notice No. 56 of 2008 for setting aside the Judgment and Decree in the Obstructionist Notice, which was rejected by order dated 11.12.2008. Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner filed Appeal No. 60/2009 which has been dismissed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court on 28.09.2010, leading to the filing of W.P. No. 9124/2010.
FACTS IN CRA NO 694/2011 :
7. BPT had filed LE & C. Suit No. 48/70/1987 against the Applicant/Petitioner on 06.01.1987 in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai under Section 41 of the P. S. C. C. Act, 1882. Defence of jurisdiction was specifically raised. The Trial Court decreed the Suit on 08.12.2006, leading to the filing of Appeal No. 144/2007 befo
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
