DOSSIBAI N B JEEJEEBHOY DOSSIBAI N B JEEJEEBHOY DOSSIBAI N B JEEJEEBHOY DOSSIBAI N B JEEJEEBHOY Vs. KHERNCHAND GORUMAL:PARMANAND DIPCHAND HNIDUJA:BALCHAND MENGHRAJ:PARMANAND SUGOMAL MEBRA
LAWS(SC)-1961-9-7
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
September 29,1961
DOSSIBAI N.B.JEEJEEBHOY
Appellant
VERSUS
KHERNCHAND GORUMAL,PARMANAND DIPCHAND HNIDUJA,BALCHAND MENGHRAJ,PARMANAND SUGOMAL MEBRA
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
MOHD MUZAMMIL KHAN VS. MOHD NADIR KHAN [LAWS(ALL)-2009-5-845] [REFERRED TO]ANANDRAO RAGHOJI MALEWAR VS. HEILMITTEL PHARMACEUTICALS [LAWS(BOM)-2005-6-100] [REFERRED TO]
MALABAR HILL CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-1990-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA BAI VS. TUKARAM [LAWS(KAR)-1977-2-27] [REFERRED TO]
SITARAM NARAYAN SHINDE VS. IBRAHIM ISMAIL RAIS [LAWS(BOM)-2004-6-46] [REFERRED TO]
JIVAJI ALIAS BALASAHEB VENKATESH ANIKHHIDI VS. SADASHIVA RAO RAMNCHANDRA RAO POTE [LAWS(KAR)-1991-8-51] [DISTINGUISED 3.]
OSMAN FAKIR MOHAMMAD DIVECHA VS. ALI AKBAR JAVAD SADAKYA [LAWS(SC)-1969-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
PISHORI LAL VS. SH. THAKUR JI, THAKURDWARA SUNAMI [LAWS(P&H)-2008-4-37] [REFERRED TO]
DEVASSIA MATHEW VS. MATHAI [LAWS(KER)-1979-12-22] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. NAND KISHORE [LAWS(P&H)-1974-5-20] [REFERRED TO]
MATHURA PRASAD BAJOO JAISWAL VS. DOSSIBAI N B JEEJEEBHOYF [LAWS(SC)-1970-2-42] [REFERRED TO]
VASANT RAMCHANDRA SHARMA VS. NARAYANIBAI MULCHAND AGRAWAL [LAWS(BOM)-1972-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
DHIREN KIRI VS. SURAJ BALRAM SAHNI [LAWS(DLH)-1974-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
NANASAHEB BHIKHAJI RAO VS. RAMBHAO ARJUN [LAWS(GJH)-2001-3-7] [REFERRED]
GOREGAON MALAYALEE SAMAJ VS. POPATLAL PRABHUDAS AND SONS [LAWS(BOM)-1987-8-32] [REFERRED TO]
PERYAKKAL VS. DAKSHAYINI [LAWS(KAR)-1971-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL NARANBHAI JINABHAI VS. PATEL GOPALDAS VENIDAS [LAWS(GJH)-1971-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
MISTRY PREMJI VALJI OF MORVI VS. KLIN PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-1995-1-27] [REFERRED]
SUTHAR KANUBHAI MOHANBHAI VS. MAHENDRABHAI DAHYABHAI DESAI [LAWS(GJH)-1982-9-4] [REFERRED]
S. RAMACHANDRA RAO VS. S. NAGABHUSHANA RAO [LAWS(SC)-2022-10-58] [REFERRED TO]
SHREERANG DEVELOPERS VS. HIMMATLAL JAMNADAS MANIAR [LAWS(GJH)-2003-4-51] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KRISNLAL MARWAH VS. GOVIND H ROHIRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-6-71] [REFERRED TO]
AMRUTLAL J TRIVEDI VS. SMITABEN B SHETH [LAWS(GJH)-2000-8-40] [REFERRED]
KEVALDAS KALABHAI VS. CHAMPAKLAL CHIMANLAL SODAGAR [LAWS(GJH)-1972-4-4] [REFERRED]
VAZAYIL MOHAMMED VS. SRIDHAR PURANIKA [LAWS(KAR)-1977-2-12] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Das Gupta, J. -
(1.)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.
(2.)The appellant brought these four suits in the City Civil Court. Bombay, for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of the premises mentioned in the plaint of these several suits. It is clear under the law that the City Civil Court, Bombay, would have no jurisdiction to try these suits if the provisions of Part II of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Act No LVII of 1947), which later in this judgment we shall refer to as the "Rent Act", applied to the premises 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 the contrary that the Rent Act applied and so the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suits. The first issue framed in each of these suits therefore was whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned Judge held that Part II of the Rent Act applied to the premises in each of these suits and consequently only the special courts specified in Section 23 of the Rent Act had jurisdiction' to entertain the suits and the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction. Accordingly, he ordered the plaint in each of the four suits to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court of Bombay but all the four appeals were summarily dismissed. The Letters Patent appeals preferred by the plaintiff from the decision of the Single Judge were also dismissed summarily. These appeals have been preferred against that decision of the Bombay High Court in Letters Patent Appeals on special leave obtained from this Court.
(3.)Under S. 5, Sub-s. 8 of the Rent Act unless there is anything repugnant in the context, "premises" means, among other things, "any land not being used for agricultural purposes." It is undisputed in these cases that the land in respect of which the suits were brought was not being used for agricultural purposes and so comes within the definition of "premises" in Section 5.
(2.)The appellant brought these four suits in the City Civil Court. Bombay, for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of the premises mentioned in the plaint of these several suits. It is clear under the law that the City Civil Court, Bombay, would have no jurisdiction to try these suits if the provisions of Part II of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Act No LVII of 1947), which later in this judgment we shall refer to as the "Rent Act", applied to the premises 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 the contrary that the Rent Act applied and so the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suits. The first issue framed in each of these suits therefore was whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned Judge held that Part II of the Rent Act applied to the premises in each of these suits and consequently only the special courts specified in Section 23 of the Rent Act had jurisdiction' to entertain the suits and the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction. Accordingly, he ordered the plaint in each of the four suits to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court of Bombay but all the four appeals were summarily dismissed. The Letters Patent appeals preferred by the plaintiff from the decision of the Single Judge were also dismissed summarily. These appeals have been preferred against that decision of the Bombay High Court in Letters Patent Appeals on special leave obtained from this Court.
(3.)Under S. 5, Sub-s. 8 of the Rent Act unless there is anything repugnant in the context, "premises" means, among other things, "any land not being used for agricultural purposes." It is undisputed in these cases that the land in respect of which the suits were brought was not being used for agricultural purposes and so comes within the definition of "premises" in Section 5.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.