D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is defendants Second Appeal.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this Appeal are that the plaintiff, who is the owner of the disputed premises permitted the defendant-appellant to occupy one room and kitchen as licensee for short period of two months without charging any licence fee. This was done at the intervention of the common relative Gandabhai Chakubhai. The defendant did not vacate the premises after expiry of two months. Hence, the notice was served upon him. He again did not comply with the notice rather gave wrong reply to the notice that he was tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 7/- and accordingly after revocation of licence the suit for possession was filed against the defendant-appellant.

( 3 ) THE defendant-appellant contested the suit on the ground that he was tenant in the accommodation consisting of one room, osari, kitchen, common lavatory, water tap and the compound on Rs. 7/- p. m. It was initially in the tenancy of one Hemubhai Kalaji. It was denied that the appellant was licensee or that he was inducted as licensee through intervention of one Gandabhai. It was also pleaded that the Appellant was paying the rent but no receipt was isued by the landlord-respondent. He filed Application in the Trial court for fixation of standard rent.

( 4 ) THE Trial Court fixed the standard rent at Rs. 7/- p. m. It however, found that the defendant-appellant was licensee and not tenant and since his licence was revoked he was liable to vacate the premises. Accordingly the suit was decreed.

( 5 ) AN appeal was preferred. The lower Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the Trial Court that the defendant-appellant was licensee and not tenant of the plaintiff-respondent. It also found that licence was revoked and decree for possession was rightly passed. The Appellate Court however modified the judgment of the Trial Court regarding fixation of standard rent observing that since the relationship of landlord and tenant was not established between the parties the standard rent could not be fixed. It is, therefore, this Second Appeal.

( 6 ) THIS Court while admitting this Appeal did not formulate any question of law of its own rather mentioned that the questions of law arise as formulated in the memo of appeal. As many as ten substantial questions of law had been formulated in the memo of appeal. I further feel that question No. 1 to 9 are mere repetition and only two substantial questions arise for determination in this Second Appeal.

( 7 ) THE first is whether the Courts below had jurisdiction to decide the suit of this nature and the second is whether the relationship between the parties was that of licensor and licensee or landlord and tenant.

( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the parties were heard at length and the judgments of the two Courts below were perused and the record was examined.

( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Trial Court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit of this nature especially when the defendant-appellant pleaded that he was tenant of the accommodation on monthly rent of Rs. 7/- and denied that he was licensee of the plaintiff. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant since a bonafide question about Appellants tenancy was raised which required adjudication the Trial Court should have returned the plaint for presentation to proper court and it was not necessary for the Appellant to establish by cogent evidence before the Civil Court that he was tenant and such question should be decided only by the rent court and not by the Civil Court. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the plea of want of jurisdiction was neither raised in the Trial Court nor any issue was raised before the Trial Court nor it was raised before the First Appellate court hence it cannot be agitated in the Second Appeal. I am unable to accept this contention. The plea of lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any time even in Second appeal s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document