LexKHEMCHAND DAYALJI & CO. versus MOHAMMEDBHAI CHANDBHAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
KHEMCHAND DAYAUI & CO. v. MOHAMMEDBBAI CHANDBHAI March 2<4, 1969 A [J. C. SHAii, V. RAMASWAMI ANU A. N. GROVER, JJ.] B AhmMabad City Courts Act, 1961-Sulu undu Bombay Rentl Hotel A Lodging llouse Rates Control Act 57 of 1947 aJ applied to the State of Oujarat u:clasively triable by court of Small Causes Ahmedabad-Rule 5 under Bombay Act making procedure under Presidency Small CaU1es Courts Acl 15 of 1882 applicable to 1uch suits and proceedings-Ahmeda- ._ Small Causes Court whether empowered to issue di.Jtre.u warrant for recc>ery of municipal taxes by Its power under s. 53 of Act 15 of 1882- c Vires of Rule 5. Jurisdiction to try suilS and pr~ between landlords and tenanta under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rateo Control Act 57 •f 1947 was by virtue elf s. 28 o! the Act given to Small Cause Courll. Under 1: 49 of the Act the State Government was authorhed to mate rules for the pdrpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act and ia "'1icular to make rules among other subjocts, for the procedure to be D followed in trying or hearing suits and proceedings including proceedin• for execution of decrees and distr,. warrants. For these purposes the Government elf Bombay under r. 5 framed by it provided that the proco- clure under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 would be follow- ed. By the enactment c;f the Bombay Reorganization Act 11 of 1960 a leparlte State of Gujarat was constiruted out of the territory which form- ed the State of Bombay, anll the area within the city limits of Ahmcda- bad formed part c/f the State of Gujarat The Legislature of the State of E Gujarat enacted the Ahmedabad City Courts Act 19 of 1961 which by ~ 17 exteoded the Presidency Small C•use Courts Act, 1882 (IS of I 882) as well as the Bombay Renb Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 57 of 1947 to the City of Ahmedabad with suitable modifications and amendments. Jurisdiction to try suits under the Bombay Act was by amend. •ent of s. 28 thereof given to the Court of Small Causes Ahmedabad. The appellants were tenant! of a house owned by the respondent in t' Ahmedabad. Apart from the rent the appellants had also agreed to pay •unicipal taxes and electricity charges. In I 963 the appellants filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes Ahmedabad for an order intu a/ia deter- mining the standard rent of the premise\ io exercise of the power under s. II of Bombay Act 57 of 1947. The said court on an application flied by the appellants fixed the contlllctual rent as the 'interim staodard rent' and directed the appellants to pay rent and municipal taxes, which the appellants accordingly deposited in Court. The Court permitted the res- G ponclent to withdraw the rent so deposited but not tho municipal taxeo. The respondent then obtained an order 'for the issue of a distress warrnt uader s. 53 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act 15 of 1882 reotl with r. 5 of the Rules framed under Bombay Act 57 of 1947 for recovery of the amount due as municipal taxes. Distress was levied aod the order was confirmed. A revision application in the High Court of Gujarat was rejected. In their appe11I against the High Court's ord.,. the appellanla ursecl : (i) that r. 5 of the Rules framed under s. 49 of the Bombay Act H 57 of 1947 was ultra vires the Slate Government; (ii) that the Court of Small Causes Ahmedabad had no jurisdiction to pus an order issuing a diotreu warrant in a proceeding under Bombay Act 57 of 1947 especially A B c D E G H KiiEMCHAND V. MOHAMMEDBHAI 8 I \\'hen an application under s. 11 was pending; (iii) tha~ the municipal taxes and electricity charges did not constitute rent which could be re· covered by the issue of a distress warrant. HELD : (i) Rule 5 was framed under Bombay Act 57 of 1947 in exercise of the authority conferred by s. ,49(2) (iii). After the enactment of the Ahmedabad City Courts Act, 1961, r. 5 as originally 'framed by the trovernment continued in force by virtue of s. 87 of the Bombay Reorga· nizi1tion Act 1 I of 1960, and applied to the Ahmedabad Small Causes C'ourt. When r. 5 was framed under Bombay Act 57 of 1947 it was not ultra vires and it \Vas not shown to have become ultra vires after the enact- ment of the Ahmcdabad City Courts Act in its application to the City o'f Ahmcdabad. [85 F·G] (ii) The distress warrant issued by the Court of Small Causes Ahmeda- bad against the appellant \Vas within its pov~:
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.