PRABHUDAS DAMODAR KOTECHA & ORS. versus MANHABALA JERAM DAMODAR & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 9 S.C.R. 52 · Decided: 13-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2013) 9 S.C.R. 52 
PRABHUDAS DAMODAR KOTECHA & ORS. 
v. 
MANHABALA JERAM DAMODAR & ANR. 
(Civil Appeals Nos. 6726-6727 of 2013) 
AUGUST 13, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
PRESIDENCY SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, 1882: 
s. 41 (1) - Suits or proceedings between licensors and 
licensees - Suit for eviction of gratuitous licensee - Held: Is 
maintainable before the Small Causes Courl ., Expression 
'licensee' used in PSCC Act is a term of wider imporl intended 
to bring in a gratuitous licensee as well and is used in general 
0 
sense of term as defined in s. 52 of Easements Act - It does 
not derive its meaning from the expression 'licensee' as used 
in sub-s. (4A) of s. 5 of Rent Act Bombay Rents, Hotel and . 
Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 - ss. 5(4-A) and 15-
A - Interpretation of statutes - Contemporenea exposition -
E 
Easements Act, 1882 - s.52 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 
s.41(1) -Suits or proceedings between licensors and 
licensees and landlord and tenant- Jurisdiction - Held: s.41(1) 
confers jurisdiction on Small Causes Court to entertain and 
try all suits and proceedings between a "licensor" and a 
F 
"licensee" relating to recovery of possession of any 
immovable property or relating to recovery of licence fee --
High Courl has correctly noticed that the clubbing of the 
expression "licensor and licensee" with "landlord and tenant" 
in s. 41(1) and clubbing of causes relating to recovery of 
G licence fee is only with a view to bring all suits between 
"landlord and tenant" and "licensor and licensee" whether 
under Rent Act or under PSCC Act under one umberalla to 
avoid unnecessary delay, expenses and hardship. 
H 
52 
·-
P RAB HU DAS DAMODAR KOTECHA v. MANHABALA 53 
JERAM DAMODAR 
BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE 
A 
RATES (CONTROL) ACT, 1947: 
ss. 5(4-A) and 15-A - 'Licensee" - Held: Under sub-s. (4A) 
of s. 5, "licensee" means a person who is in occupation of the 
premises or such part as the case may be, under a subsisting 
8 
agreement for licence given for a "licence fee or charge" --
The definition of "licensee" under sub-s. (4A) of s. 5 is both 
exhaustive as well as inclusive -- But licensee under sub-s. 
(4A) must be a licensee whose licence is supported by 
material consideration meaning thereby a gratuitous licensee 
C 
is not covered under the definition of 'licensee' under sub-s. 
(4A) of s. 5. 
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: 
Contemprenea expositio - Held: Is a recognized rule of D 
interpretation -- Concept of licence and lease were dealt with 
by contemporary statutes: Easements Act, Transfer of 
Property Act ands. 41 of PSCC Act -- Therefore, s. 41(1) of 
PSCC Act could not have contemplated any other meaning 
of the term "occupation with permission" but only the 
E 
permission as contemplated by s. 52 of Easements Act. 
Provisions 'pan· materia' - Held: Bombay Rent Act, 1947 
and Chapter VII of PSCC Act cannot be said to be pari pateria 
statutes- s.5(4-A) of Bombay Rent Act and s.52 of Easements 
Act reflecting the expression 'licensee' are not pari material. 
F 
Noscitur a sociis - Held: When the intention of legislature 
in using the expression 'licensee' ins. 41(1) of the PSCC Act 
is clear and unambiguous, the principle of noscitur a sociis 
is not to be applied. 
G 
Statement of objects and Reasons - Relevance of 
interpreting a provision - Explained. 
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 along with other plaintiffs 
filed a suit uls 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts 
H 
54 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 
A Act, 1882 before the Small Causes Court, Bombay against 
the appellants (original defendants) for recovery and 
vacant possession of the suit premises and also for other 
consequential reliefs. It was the case of the plaintiffs that 
the defendants were in use and occupation of the suit 
B premises as their guest-house and in this regard no 
monetary consideration was charged by them from the 
defendants. Permission granted to the defendants to use 
the premises was later revoked and since they did not 
vacate the suit flat, the suit was filed for eviction. The '. 
c Small Causes Court decreed the suit and ordered . 
eviction of the defendants-appellants with a specific · 
finding that they were gratuitous licensees. The appeal 
of the appellants was dismissed by the Appellate Bench 
of Small Causes Court. The appellants as well as the 
0 respondents filed writ petitions before the High Court; the 
respondents' writ petition was for cla
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.