Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a suit instituted by the respondent partnership firm in the Bombay City Civil Court against the appellants concerning possession and use of a shop at Mulji Jetha Market, Bombay. The respondent claimed to be in lawful possession as a tenant of the shop and had entered into a commission agency agreement with the first appellant. The central dispute was whether the Court of Small Causes, Bombay had exclusive jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, or whether the City Civil Court could try the suit. The respondent alleged that by agreement dated June 23, 1955, appellant No. 1 appointed the respondent as his commission agent for sale of cloth in the shop, the agreement to remain in force until June 30, 1959. The respondent allowed the appellants, their family members, servants, and agents to visit the shop only for commission agency work. Upon expiry, the appellants had no right to enter, but they continued to visit and disturb possession. The plaint sought declaration of lawful possession, injunction restraining entry, and payment of commission due. The plaint expressly negatived any landlord-tenant relationship, asserting the appellants were licensees during the agreement and trespassers thereafter. In defense, the appellants contended that the respondent had sublet the shop to them at a monthly rent of Rs. 500; since subletting was prohibited without landlord consent under the Act, the parties entered into a sham agreement dated June 30, 1952, and the later agreement of June 23, 1955 was inoperative, the true relationship being landlord and tenant. On this plea, the appellants argued the Court of Small Causes alone had jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the suit fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes under Section 28 of the Act. A subsidiary issue was whether jurisdiction should be determined solely by the plaint averments or could be ousted by the defense. Appellants relied on Babulal Bhuramal v. Nandram Shivram and contended that since the defense raised a question of landlord-tenant relationship, the Small Causes Court had exclusive jurisdiction. The respondent urged that the plaint did not admit any relationship attracting the Act and that jurisdiction at inception depends on the plaint, citing Govindram Salamatrai v. Dharampal and Jaswantlal v. Western Company, India. The majority, per S.K. Das and Hidayatullah JJ., held that Section 28 gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Court of Small Causes only in suits between landlord and tenant relating to recovery of rent or possession, and in applications, claims or questions arising under the Act. It does not invest the Small Causes Court with exclusive power to try questions of title between a rightful owner and a trespasser or licensee. If the plaintiff's plaint does not admit a relationship attracting the Act, the defendant cannot force the plaintiff to another forum. Jurisdiction depends on the averments in the plaint, not the defense. The Bombay High Court decisions in Govindram Salamatrai and Jaswantlal were approved; Babulal Bhuramal was explained as not overruling that principle. In a separate concurring judgment, Sarkar J. reasoned that even on the defense, no claim or question arose under the Act because the Act does not deal with creation of tenancy, and the only question was whether the appellants were licensees. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the High Court's order, and held that the City Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The matter was directed to proceed in the City Civil Court in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction - Exclusive Jurisdiction under Rent Control Act - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 28 - The suit as framed by plaintiff alleged only license and trespass, negativing landlord-tenant relationship; the question of jurisdiction at inception depends on plaint averments and defendant cannot oust jurisdiction by pleading landlord-tenant status; Court of Small Causes has exclusive jurisdiction only over suits between landlord and tenant for recovery of rent/possession or claims/questions arising under the Act; neither licensee nor trespasser question arises under the Act - Held that City Civil Court had jurisdiction. (Paras not mentioned) B) Rent Control - Landlord and Tenant Disputes - Scope of Section 28 - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 28 - The Act does not deal with creation of tenancy or questions of title between owner and trespasser/licensee; a defense alleging sub-tenancy or tenancy does not raise a claim or question arising out of the Act, because the Act says nothing about creation of tenancy - Held that suit did not involve a claim or question under the Act and could be tried by ordinary civil court. (Paras not mentioned) C) Statutory Interpretation - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - Plaint Averments Rule - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 28 - Jurisdiction depends on allegations in plaint, not on defense, unless the statute provides otherwise; Section 28 does not alter this general principle; Government decisions approving Govindram Salamatrai and Jaswantlal overruling Ebrahim Saleji were explained - Held that High Court correctly applied plaint averments rule. (Paras not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Court of Small Causes, Bombay had exclusive jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 to try the suit where the plaintiff claimed possession as licensee/trespasser and sought injunction against the defendants, while the defendants pleaded a landlord-tenant relationship and sub-tenancy.
Final Decision
Supreme Court dismissed appeal and upheld High Court's order; held City Civil Court had jurisdiction to try suit; directed City Civil Court to dispose of suit in accordance with law. Majority judgment by S.K. Das and M. Hidayatullah, JJ.; separate concurring judgment by Sarkar, J.
Law Points
- Section 28 of Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947 gives exclusive jurisdiction to Court of Small Causes only in landlord-tenant suits for recovery of rent or possession and applications
- claims or questions arising under the Act
- jurisdiction depends on plaint averments not defense
- defendant cannot oust jurisdiction by pleading landlord-tenant relationship when plaint negatives it
- questions of title between owner and trespasser/licensee do not arise under the Act
- suit by licensee/trespasser against alleged sub-tenant is triable by ordinary civil court.
