Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 677
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
V. M. KANADE & C. V. BHADANG, JJ.
Hussainali Sharif Punjwani - Applicant
Vs.
The Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay - Respondents
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.193 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8451 OF 2008, 9124 OF 2010, 6536 OF 2012 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.217, 694 OF 2011, 30 OF 2012 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.790 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATIN NO.1028 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.790 OF 2011
Decided On :13-06-2017
For the Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh A. Kumbhakoni, a/w Mr. Akshay Shinde, B.H. Prasad Sharma, Mr. Viren Asar a/w Mr. Arvind Fedge, Mr. Anuramazda Postvala i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co. Ms. Rekha Shukla, Mr. B.K. Raje
For the Respondents Mr. Shreehari Aaney, a/w Mrs. Dipti Srinivatsan, Mr.
Deepak Motiwalla Solicitor and Mr. Rooshesh Motiwalla i/b Motiwalla
& Co.
Headnote:
The Bombay High Court held that the word "entertain" used in Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (the Act) means that the Small Causes Court would have jurisdiction to hear all such suits for eviction which were lodged/filed before 21/09/1989 and on the other hand the Small Causes Court would continue to have jurisdiction to decide those suits which were pending as on 21/09/1989.
Fact of the Case:
The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (the Act) was amended in 1980, which gave jurisdiction to try cases for eviction of tenants to the Estate Officer instead of the Rent Court and the Small Causes Court. However, the Estate Officer was appointed only in 1989. As a result, eviction suits were filed in the Small Causes Court despite the amendment. A group of cases came up before the learned Single Judge Mr. Justice V.C. Daga (as he then was) in Shalan w/o Narayan Dappal & Ors. Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, 2009 (3) MH.L.J. 923. The controversy in question arose on account of amendment of Section 15 of the said Act. By virtue of the said amendment, jurisdiction to try cases for eviction of tenants was taken away from the Rent Court and the Small Causes Court and was conferred on the Estate Officer. The said Act was amended by the Public Premises (Eviction) of Unauthorized Occupants) Amendment Act, 1980 (Act No.61 o 980) which received the assent of the President on 20/12/1980 and was published in the Gazette of India on 22/12/1980. It is an admitted position that though the said Act was amended on 22/12/1980, machinery to deal with these cases became available in 1989. As a result, eviction suits were filed in the Small Causes Court despite the said amendment.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the word "entertain" used in Section 15 of the Act would mean that the Small Cause Court would have jurisdiction to hear all such suits for eviction which were lodged/filed before 21/09/1989 and on the other hand the Small Causes Court would continue to have jurisdiction to decide those suits which were pending as on 21/09/1989.
Issues: Whether the word “entertain” used in Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 can be equated with the word “lodging/filing” of the Suit or will have to be interpreted to mean “consideration of merits of the Suit” or “the date of framing of issues in the Suit”.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the word “entertain” in Section 15 of the Act in light of the dictionary meaning and the interpretation of the word by the Apex Court in other similarly situated cases. The Court held that the word “entertain” does not mean mere initiation of proceedings but the actual stage when the Court takes up the Suits for consideration.
Final Decision: The Court held that the word “entertain” used in Section 15 of the Act would mean that the Small Cause Court would have jurisdiction to hear all such suits for eviction which were lodged/filed before 21/09/1989 and on the other hand the Small Causes Court would continue to have jurisdiction to decide those suits which were pending as on 21/09/1989.
V.M. Kanade, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant in CRA/193/2011 and Mr. Shreehari Aaney, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents/BPT. The other three learned Counsel appearing in CRA/30/2012, CRA/217/2011 and CRA/694/2011 have adopted the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Kumbhakoni.
2. A short but interesting question has been referred to us by the Hon'ble Chief Justice in view of the reference made by the learned Single Judge Mr. Justice G.S. Godbole (as he then was) in his judgment dated 18/01/2012. The question which was framed for reference by the learned Single Judge is as under:
“Whether the word “entertain” used in Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 can be equated with the word “lodging/filing” of the Suit or will have to be interpreted to mean “consideration of merits of the Suit” or “the date of framing of issues in the Suit”.
By the said judgment and order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to differ with the view taken by learned Single Judge Mr. Justice V.C. Daga (as he then was) in Shalan w/o Narayan Dappal & Ors. Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, 2009 (3) MH.L.J. 923. The controversy in question arose on account of amendment of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (Act No.40/1971) [hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) and more particularly Section 15 of the said Act. By virtue of the said amendment, jurisdiction to try cases for eviction of tenants was taken away from the Rent Court and the Small Causes Court and was conferred on the Estate Officer. The said Act was amended by the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Amendment Act, 1980, (Act No.61 of 1980) and it received the assent of the President of India on 20/12/1980 and it was published in the Gazette of India on 22/12/1980. It is an admitted position that though the said Act was amended on 22/12/1980, machinery to deal with these cases became available in 1989. As a result, eviction suits were filed in the Small Causes Court despite the said amendment.
3. In a group of cases which came up before the learned Single Judge Mr. Justice V.C. Daga, it was held that all cases which were pending in the Small Causes Court relating to eviction of tenants would be decided by the Small Causes Court and only those cases which were lodged/filed after the Estate Officer was appointed in the year 1989 would be decided by the Estate Officer.
4. Another group of cases in which decree of eviction was passed by the Small Causes Court and confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court were heard by another learned Single Judge Mr. Justice G.S. Godbole (as he then was) and the learned Single Judge after relying on 2/3 judgments of the Apex Court, came to the conclusion that only those cases in which issues were framed would remain with the Small Causes Court and fresh cases would be filed and decided by the Estate Officer. The learned Single Judge (G.S. Godbole, J.) came to the said conclusion by interpreting the word “entertain” and held that the said word if interpreted in a proper manner after taking into consideration the dictionary meaning and the interpretation of the word by the Apex Court in other similarly situated cases, meant that only those cases where issues were framed could be entertained by the Small Causes Court.
5. The Hon'ble Chief Justice was pleased to refer the matter to Division Bench to decide the said reference. We have accordingly heard the matter at length on different dates. We have heard Mr. Kumbhakoni, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants and also Mr. Aaney, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents viz the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay.
6. Very brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding these applications need to be mentioned. Respondents - the Board of Trustees
