LexMRS. DOSSIBAI N. B. JEEJEEBHOY versus KHEMCHAND GORUMAL AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1961
Se;ttmbtr 29.
()28
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1962)
!\IRS. DOSSIBAI N. B. JEEJEEBHOY
v.
KHEMCHAND GORUMAL AND OTHEl\S
( K. N. 'VAKCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and
J. c. SIIAJI, JJ.)
lea .. -Open land for co11stn1ction of reBidential and busine&
building-Letting, if for residfnce or business-Subuqmnt
letting of b!<ilding in absence of a contract pumitting 81lb-letti>1g-
l,'jJect-Bombay Rent•, l!otel and Lodging l/ou"e Rates Control,
Act, 1947 (Born. 57 of 1947), as. 6, 15, 25, 28-Part II, Sch. J.
The appellant took lease of an open laH<l for construction
of Luildings suitable for
residential, business, industrial or
office purposes.
The appellant brought rnits in the City
Civil court, Bombay, for the recovery of arrears of rent in
respect of premises built on the sai<l open land, all within the
city of Bombay thus in the area specified in Schedule I of the
llombay Rents, Hotel an<l Lodging House Rates Control Act,
1947. The appellant stated in the Plaint itsdf that the Bombay
Rent Control Act, I 947, did not apply to the demised premises.
The defendants pleaded that the Rent Act applied and the
City Ci"il Court had no juri•diction to try the suit. The trial
Ju<lge held that part II of the Rent Act applied to the premis-
es and consequently only the special courts specified in s. 28
of the Rent Act had jurisdiction to en terrain the suit and
ordered the plaints in the suits to be returned to the plaintiff
for presentation to the proper court. The ll<imbay High Court
summarily dismissed the appeals from the said orders. The
point at issue for decision \\·as 'vhcthcr "'vhen a lessee takes
lease of open land for
the purpose of constructing on it
buildings intended to be used for residt::ncc or for business,
this amounts to "letting for residence" or "letting for busi·
ness".
The appellants contention was that as open land not
intended to be used, as it is, for residence or husiness but for
construction of buildings for residence or business \Vas taken on
lease the land was not being let for re.idence or business.
J/F:lcl, that the v-·ords "let for
residence, education,
business or storage" in s.G of the fiomhay Rents, Hotel and
Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, are wide enough to
include a letting for the achievrncnt of these: purposes by con·
struction of buildings as also ,,·ithout construction of buildings.
l!eld, further, that on the facts of the present case, in
<".ach of these ca"-es, the lease \vas taken \Vith a view to const·
ruct buildings thereon for residet1tial, business, industrial or
offi~e purpO&CI and the land let was therefore 'premises' to
"
.,
,.
'
-
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
929
which under s. 6(1) of the Bombay Rent Act, the provisions of
Part II of the Act applied.
Vinayak Gopal v Laxman ]{ashinaih I. L. R. (1956) Bom.
82 7, approved.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Civil
Appeals Nos. 503 to 506 of 1958.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment
and orders dated August 4, 1957, of the Bombay
High Court in Letters patent Appeals Nos. 29 to 3:!
of 1957.
J. C. Bhatt, R. P. Bhatt, R. A. Gagrat and
G. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellants.
N. C. Chatterjee, Madhowdas C. Bhagat and
Radhey Lal Agarwal, for the respondents in C. A.
-,.
No. 503 of 58.
..
JJfadhowdas C. Bhagat and Radh"Y Lal Agarwol,
for the respondents in C. As. Nos. 504 to 506 of
1958.
1961. September 29. Tho Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
DAS GUPTA, J.-When a lessee takes lease of
open land for the purpose of constructing on it
buildings intended to be used for residence or for
business is this "letting for residence", or "letting
for business"? That is the short question which
arises for decision in these four appeals.
The
appellant brought these fJur suits in the City Civil
Courts, Bombay, for recovery of arrears of rent in
respect of the premises mentioned in the pbint of
these several suits. It is clear under the law that
the City Civil Court, Bombay, would have no juris-
diction to try these suits if the provisions of Part II
of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House
Rates Control Act, 1947 (Born. 57 of 1947), which
later in this judgment we shall refer to as the
"Rent Act", applied to the permises in suits. For
this reason the plaintiff stated in the plaint itself
that this Rent Act did not apply to the demised
premises. The defendant in each case pleaded on
1961
Mrs. Dossiiai
N. B. Je(jeellwy
v.
Khnnclumd Gorumd
Das Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.