LexBABULAL BHURAMAL AND ANOTHER versus NANDRAM SHIVRAM AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 367 sorts of disputes tenable or otherwise in order to avoid their liability in respect of the transactions effected by them in the Association. It may be hoped that the Association will take effective steps to bring the official contract form in conformity with the by- laws in operation from time to time and the practice of the trade prevailing in the Association. • The result therefore is that this appeal fails and must stand dismissed with costs throughout . • Appeal dismissed. ~ .BABULAL BHURAMAL AND ANOTHER v. NANDRAlVI SHIVRAlVI AND OTHERS (B. P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM and SuBBA RAO JJ.) Bombay City Civil Court, Jurisdiction of-Suit to establish status as tenants and sub-tenants f-0r protection from eviction- W hether can be entertained-Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, I947 (Bom. LVII of z947), ss. 28·and 29A. A who was a tenant of N sub-let the premises to Band C. N filed a suit for ejectment against A, B and C in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, on the ground of illegal sub-letting. The suit was decreed. Thereafter, A, B and C filed the present suit in the Bombay City Civil Court for a declaration that A was a tenant of N and was protected from eviction by the provisiom; of the Bom- bay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1~47, and that B and C were lawful sub-tenants of A and were as such entitled to possession, use and occupation of the premises. The City Civil Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit but dismissed it on the ground that there was no lawful sub- letting. On appeal, the Bombay High Court l!eld that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and dismissed the appeal without going i.nto the merits : · Held, that the High Court was right in holding thats. 28 of the Act barred the City Civil Court from entertaining the suit. Section 28 explicitly confers on courts specified therein jurisdic- tion to entertain a suit between a landlord and a tenant in respect of a claim which .arose out of the Act or any of its provisions, • .... f. GorJhandas l'urshottamdas Sonawala v. Eastern Cotton Company Bltagwati ]. JWarch JI. 368" SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] r958 and expressly prohibits any other court exercising jurisdiction with respect thereto. In the present suit the claim being one Babulf/l Bhurau1ul which arose out of the Act, and the City Civil Court not being a an l .·l nother court specified in s. 28, it could not entertain the suit. Though v. s. 29A of the Act allows questions of title to be reagitated in a A'andra11i Skivra1n civil court, it applies only to titles which do not arise out of the rind (!titers A.ct or any of its provisions; and titles which could not be established outside the Act but which arose under the provisions of the Act by virtue of a claim made thereunder must be detei;.- mined by a court specified in s. 28. !main j. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDIOTit">N: Civil Appeal No. 84 of 1957. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated Novem- ber 7, 1955, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 629 of 1955, arising out of the judgment and decree dated August 9, 1955, of the City Civil Court, Bombay, in Suit No. 2178 of 1954. • A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and J. N. Shroff, for the a ppollants. Purshotam Tricumdas and 0. P. Lal, for the res- pondents. 19.58. March 31. The following Judgment of the Co~lrt was delivered by IMAM J.-The sole question considered and decided by the High Court was whether the suit filed by the "'ppellants in the City Civil Court could be entertained by that Court, having regard to the provisions of s. 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The High Court was of the opinion that the City Civil Co"urt had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It did not pronounce any opinion on the merits of the appel- lants' case. The only question which requires con- sideration in this appeal is whether the High Court correctly deciCled that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the appel- lants. The first plaintiff in the suit before the City Civil Court, was a tenant of the premises in question under the first defendant. The second and third plaintiffs were persons to whom the said premise& were sublet by • .. ., " S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 369 the first plaintiff. The first defe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.