C C BASU Vs. PATEL DAHYABHAI VAGHJIBHAI
LAWS(GJH)-1966-7-4
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on July 26,1966

C.C.BASU Appellant
VERSUS
PATEL DAHYABHAI VAGHJIBHAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.J.DIVAN - (1.) The opponents in both these Civil Revision Applications are the same. The petitioners in the two Civil Revision Applications are different. The opponents in both these Civil Revision Applications are the landlords and the petitioners in each of these Civil Revision Applications are the tenants occupying different portions of the same building which is situated at Baroda. The plaintiffs had filed two suits against these two different tenants for recovery of possession of the premises in suit and the suits were originally filed in the Court of the Civil Judge Sr. Dn. Baroda. Thereafter both these suits were transferred. So far as the suit from which Civil Revision Application No. 197 of 1966 arises is concerned it was transferred to the Court of the 5th Joint Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Baroda and so far as the suit from which Civil Revision Application No. 106 of 1966 arises is concerned it was transferred to the Court of the 6th Joint Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Baroda. While these suits were pending in the Courts of the 5th and the 6th Joint Civil Judges Jr. Dn. Baroda respectively the District Judge Baroda passed an order under sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure transferring these two suits to the Court of the Joint Civil Judge Sr. Dn Baroda. After both these suits were thus transferred an application was filed by the respective defendant in each of these two suits contending that under the provisions of sec 28 of the Bombay Rents Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) it was only the Court of Civil Judge Jr. Dn. functioning at Baroda that had exclusive jurisdiction to try these suits under the Act and therefore the Court of the Joint Civil Judge Sr. Dn. had no jurisdiction to try and dispose of the suits. The learned trial Judge dismissed both these applications by separate judgments which were both on the same lines and the present two Civil Revision Applications have been filed against the judgment and orders in these two suits.
(2.) The same point is involved in both the Civil Revision Applications and I will dispose of both of them by this common judgment.
(3.) The contention on behalf of the petitioners in these two Civil Revision. Applications is based on the wording of sec. 28 of the Act and so far as is relevant the words of the section are: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law and notwithstanding that by reason of the amount of the claim or for any other reason the suit or proceeding would not but for this provision be within its jurisdiction (b) elsewhere the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) having jurisdiction in the area in which the premises are situate or if there is no such Civil Judge the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) having ordinary jurisdiction shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try any suit or proceeding between a landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises to which any of the provisions of this part apply and.....no other court shall have jurisdiction to ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... entertain any such suit proceeding or application or to deal with such claim or question. Now the Act nowhere lays down how the Court of Civil Judge Jr. Dn. is to be constituted or how the Court of Civil Judge Sr. Dn. is to be constituted or how the area in which these two different types of Courts are to exercise their ordinary jurisdiction is to be determined. In order to find out how the Courts of Civil Judges Jr. Dn. and the Courts of Civil Judges Sr. Dn. in different areas are to be constituted and also to find out the areas in which these respective Courts have ordinary jurisdiction one has to go to the provisions of the Bombay Civil Courts Act being Bombay Act No. 14 of 1869.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.