LexBHATIA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD versus D. C. PATEL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
s.c.k SUP~EME COURT REP6RTS BHATIA CU-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIE'l'Y L1'D. v. D. C. PATEL. • [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, DAS, VIVIAN BOSE and GHULAM HASAN JJ.] is5 Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodaing House Rates Control Act (LVII of 1947) s. 4 (1)-Suit by lessee of premises belonging to Govermnent or local cmthority aaainst sub-lcssee-Appliwbili111 of Act-Jurisdiction of City Civil Court-Construction of lease- Ownership of bu-ilding put up by lessee-Jurisdiction of Courts- lnherent power to decide question of jurisdiction. Section 4 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 194 7, which provides that the Act shall not apply to premises belonging to the Government or a local autho- rity applies not only to suits between the Government or a local authority as a landlord against the lessee, but also to suits by a lessee of the Government or a local authority against his sub- lessee. The indemnity conferred is in respect of premises ue- longing to the Government or a local authority. A building site was auctioned to a person by the City Im- provement Trust of Bomlmy with a condition that the bidder was to put up a building of a certain description at a cost of not less than Rs. 50,000 and after the completion of the building, the site and the building were to be leased to the bidder for a period of 999 years at a fixed yearly rent. Held, on a construction of the lease-deed that the building put up by the bidder belonged to the '!_'rust and not to the bidder and a suit by the lessee against his sub-lessee was not governed by the Bombay Bents, Hotels_ and Lqdging House Rates Control Act, 194 7, as the premises belonged to a local authority within the meaning of s. 4 (1) of the Act, and the suit could accordingly be instituted in the City Civil Court of Bombay. A civil Comt has inherent jurisdiction to decide the question of its own jurisdiction and to entertain a suit although as a result of the inquiry it may turn out that it has no jurisdiction. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1952. Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated December 12, 1949, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Weston and Shah JJ.) in First Appeal No. 456 of 1949, arising out of J udg- ment and Decree dated January 24, 1949, of the 1952 lv~ov. 5 . i86 SUPREME COURT REPOR'l'S [1953j 1952 Bombay City Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 106 of 1948. J1hatiri Go-operati'.e JYI.. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, (8. B. IIonsmgSomety Jathar with him) for the appellant. Ud. N v. . P. Engineer (K. H. Bhaba with him) for the n. c. Patel. respondent. 1952. November 5. 'l'he Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS J.-'l'his is an appeal filed with the special leave of this Court. It is directed against the judg- ment and decree passed on December 2, 1949, by a Division Bench (Weston and Shah JJ.) of the Bom- bay High Court reversing, on the ground of absence of jurisdiction, the judgment and decree for possession passed on January 24, 1949, by the Bombay City Civil Court and directing the return of the plaint fot· presentation to the proper Court. There is no dispute as to the facts material for the purposes of this appeal. On or about April 15, 1908, the Board of 'l'rustees for the Improvement of the City .of Bombay pnt up to auction plots Nos. lG, 17 and 18 of new snrvey Nos. 8234, 8235 and 8244 situate on .the Princess Street Estate of the Board containing an area of 2235 square yards for being let on certain conditions. One Sitaram Luxman was the highest bidder and was declared the tenant at an annual rent per square yard to be calculated at the rate of 41! per cent. of Rs. 29 per square yard and he signed the memorandum of agreement incorporating the conditions upon which the auction was held and by which he agreed to be bound. He deposited the moneys in terms of clause 3 of the conditions, and upon such payment entered into possession of the plots. By clause 7 Sitaram Luxman agreed, within the time specified therein, to build and complete at a cost of not less than Rs. 50,000 a building consisting of 5 floors with suitable offices, drains etc. according to plans and specifications to be made by an approved architect and approved by the Board. l3y clause 17 .. S.C.R,. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 187 be agreed, so soon as the main building should be 1952 roofed ii;i, to insure i~ the joint na_mes of the Board Bhatia and of hi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.