LexIMPORTERS AND MANUFACTURERS LTD. versus PHEROZE FRAMROZE TARAPOREWALA AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1953 J 19;2 IMPORTERS AND MANUFACTURERS LTD. Dc1;. 10. v. • PHEROZE FRAMROZE TARAPOREWALA AND OTHERS. [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, DAS and BHAGWATI JJ.] Betmbay Rents, Hotel and Lod,ging Rates Control Act, 1947, s. 28-Sub-lease by tenant in contravention of ter1n of lease-Suit by landlord against tenant anci sub-tenant for possession and compen- 3ation for use and occupation-Jurisdiction of Small Causes Oou,rt" -Oonstrnction of s. 28-Impleading of wb-tenant, effect of. Where a lease of a flat situated within the City of Bombay contained "'a term that the tenant shall not assign, sub-let or re-let the premises without the previous consent of the landlord and the tenant, in contravention of this term sub-let the flat, and the land- lord instituted a suit against him and the sub-tenant in the Court of Small Cause~, Bombay, for possession and compensation for use and occupation of the premises, and the sub-lessee contend- ed that the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction so far as he was concerned inasmuch as the suit was not one between a land- lord and a tenant nor one for rent within s. 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Rates Control Act, 1947: Held, (i) that the suit was clearly one for possession and the claim for compensation was merely an incidental claim; (ii) s. 28 of the Act conferred jurisdiction on the Court oi. Small Causes not only to entertain and try any suit or proceed- ing between a landlord and tenant for recovery of rent or posses- sion, but also "to deal with any claim or question arising out of this Act or any of its provisions" and s. 28 was thus wide enough to cover the question raised as between the plaintiff and the sub-lessee ; (iii) in any event, though the sub-lessee was not a necessary party- to the suit he was a proper party, and the joinder of such It party cannot alter the nature of the suit and make it any the less a suit between a landlord and tenant or take it out of s. 28. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 172 of 1952. Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Decree dated January 25, 1952, of the High Caurt of JudicatUl'e at Bombay (Chagla C.J.) in Revision Application No. 1119 of 195! from the Judgment and Decree dated August 10, 1951, of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in Appeal No. 355 of 1950, arising out of .Judgment and Decree dated ~- S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPOR'rS 227 1952 December 18, 1950, of the Court of Small Causes in Suit No. 1055/7943 of 1948. - B. H. Lulla for the appellants. • C. K. Daphtary (Solicitor-General for India) (R.B. Importers and Manufacturdr& Ltd. v. Pheroee Adhyarujina, with him) for the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Framrose Taraporeioala 1952 .. December 10. The Judgment of the Court and Others. was delivered by DAS J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judi- cature at Bombay passed on January 25, 1952, in Civil Revision Application No. 1119 of 1951. It arises out of a suit filed in the Bombay Small Causes Oourt under section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, for ejectment from and compensation at the rate of Rs. 370 per month from November 1, _ 1947, for the use and occupation of the second floor flat of Sunama House situate in Cumballa Hill, Bombay. The plaint- iffs are the trustees of the will of Framroze D. B. Taraporewala deceased and as such the owners of the Sunama House. The defendants are two in number, namely, the first defendant Mrs. Dinbai K. Lala to whom the said flat was let out by the plaintiffs on or aibout September 1, 1942, at Rs. 370 per month and the second defendant a limited com- . pany to whom the first defendant had sublet the said flat as from November 16, 1947, at the same rent. The defendants contested the suit on a variety of grounds, but the trial Court by its judgment dated October 18, 1950, rejected all the _pleas and passed a decree directing both the defendants· to vacate the flat by March 31, 1951, and awarding, only as against the first defendant, Rs. 3,317-10-8 for compensation ·from November 1, 1947, till July 31, 1948, and there- after at Rs. 370 per month from August 1, 1948, till delivery of possession besides the costs of the suit. The defendants preferred an appeal under section 29 ·of th~t Act. Besilles tpe various pleas put forwarq Das J: 1962 Ifliporters and l1Jan_ufacturers . L
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.