A.P.RAVANI - (1.)A Label or the substance ? Which one of them determines the real nature of relationship between the parties in a suit where the plaintiff has claimed recovery of possession of the premises ? After answering the aforesaid question we are faced with the question can an authority invested with two different jurisdictions exercise both the jurisdictions simultaneously in one and the same proceeding notwithstanding the fact that the original forum may be differennt and the procedure laid down in respect of exercise of both the jurisdictions may also be entirely different. Putting it in simple form can you ride two horses together simultaneously notwithstanding the fact that the starting point as well as the tracts charted out for onward journey by both the horses are fundamentally distinct and separate ? The aforesaid questions arise in the backdrop of the following facts and circumstances:
(2.)The respondent-original plaintiff filed a suit in the court of Civil Judge (JD) Nadiad for recovery of vacant possession of residential premises occupied by the petitioners-original defendants. The petitioners-defendants are the heirs and legal representatives of one Parshottamdas Patel who occupied the suit premises under an agreement labelled as leave and licence executed on 22/02/1962 It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant could have occupied the premises till he was in the service of the plaintiff-Mill Company. The service of the defendant came to an end on 10/01/1976 Thereafter a notice of eviction dated 2/04/1976 was served upon the defendant and he was called upon to hand over the possession of the suit premises. Since he did not comply with the requisition made in the notice the suit was filed on 21/07/1976 invoking the ordinary civil jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Judge (JD) Nadiad and the possession was claimed on the ground that after the termination of service of the defendant he had no right to occupy the premises since the term of agreement of leave and licence also came to an end with the termination of service.
(3.)The defendant appeared in the suit and filed written statement inter alia contending that he was tenant and not licensee of the suit premises and that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. During the pendency of the suit defendant died and his heirs and legal representatives were brought on record. The trial court after framing the issues and after recording evidence came to the conclusion that the defendant was a licensee and that the services of the defendant had been terminated on 10/01/1976 and that the defendant had failed to prove that he was tenant of the suit premises. The trial court also came to the conclusion that it had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the case and directed the defendant to handover possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff-Mill Company latest before 31/12/1978 and further ordered the defendant to pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 15.50 per month from the date of the suit till the date of handing over of the possession. The trial court delivered its judgment on 30/09/1978