O.C.J. Suit No. 2200 of 1948. Case: Bai Aimai Limjibhai Kavarana Vs Minoo Manchershaw Davar. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | O.C.J. Suit No. 2200 of 1948 |
| Judges | Desai, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure |
| Citation | AIR 1949 Bom 254, (1949) 51 BomLR 272 |
| Judgement Date | September 30, 1948 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
Desai, J.
-
The plaintiff is the mother-in-law of the defendant. The plaintiff says that after the marriage of her daughter with the defendant, the defendant was allowed to stay in the plaintiff's flat with the plaintiff's leave and license and that the defendant is at present in wrongful occupation of one bed-room in that flat as the license given by the plaintiff to the defendant has been withdrawn. The plaintiff submits that the defendant is a trespasser in respect of that room and that he is liable to pay damages for trespass at the rate of Rs. 50 per month or at such, other rate as this Court may determine from. June 20, 1948. The plaintiff prays that the defendant, his servants and agents may be ordered to remove himself and them from the room in the flat with their belongings and that the defendant, his servants and agents may be restrained by an order and injunction of this Court from entering the flat or occupying any room therein; and that the defendant should be ordered to pay to the plaintiff damages at the rate of Rs. 50 per month or at such other rate as this Court may determine from June 20, 1948, till the injunction prayed for becomes effective.
-
The defendant denies that he is the licensee in occupation of the room under a. license from the plaintiff and he says that he is a sub-tenant of the plaintiff. At the hearing the following issues were raised:--
(1) Whether having regard to the Bombay Rent Control Act XL VII of 1947 and or the Bombay City Civil Court Act 1948, this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
(2) Whether the defendant is a licensee or a sub-tenant of the plaintiff?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any, and if so, what reliefs? and
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation, and if so, at what rate?
-
The Advocate General appearing with Mr. Poonawalla on behalf of the defendant argued issue No. 1 first, as his submission was that if this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the question whether the defendant was a licensee or a subtenant could not be decided by this Court. The Advocate General did not press the point that this Court had no jurisdiction because of the Bombay Rent Control Act (XLVII of 1947), as he realized that that Act applied only in cases where the relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted. Though the defendant in this case maintains that he was the sub-tenant of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has denied that allegation and has brought this suit on the footing that the defendant was a licensee only. If in the course of the hearing it transpires that the defendant was not the licensee but was the sub-tenant, the plaintiff's suit will fail. There is no relief that this Court is going to give to the plaintiff on the footing that the defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff.
-
The Advocate General argued that the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 takes away the jurisdiction of the High Court to try this suit. The Advocate General referred me to Section 7, Sub-clause (xi)(cc), of the Court-fees Act (VII of 1870), which provides for the court-fees to be levied in suits between landlord and tenant for the recovery of immoveable property from a...
To continue reading
Request your trial