Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a suit for eviction filed in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay under section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. The plaintiffs, Manharbala Jeram Damodar and Arvind Jeram Damodar (as manager of a Hindu Undivided Family), alleged that they had permitted the defendants, Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha and his family members, to occupy one bedroom in a flat as guests without any monetary consideration. The plaintiffs claimed they were tenants of the suit flat and had provided the accommodation gratuitously, later revoking the permission. When the defendants refused to vacate, the plaintiffs sought eviction. The defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court, relying on a Division Bench judgment in Ramesh Dwarkadas Mehra v. Indravati Dwarkadas Mehra (2001) which held that a suit against a gratuitous licensee is not maintainable under section 41 because the term 'licensee' must be construed as per the definition in section 5(4A) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, which excludes licensees without material consideration. However, an earlier Division Bench in Bhagirathi Lingawade v. Laxmi Silk Mills (1993) had taken the view that the Rent Act definitions are irrelevant for interpreting section 41. Faced with this direct conflict, a Single Judge of the High Court, while hearing the writ petitions arising from the trial court's order upholding jurisdiction, referred the matter to a Full Bench by order dated 16 January 2006. The Full Bench framed two questions: first, whether the expression 'licensee' in section 41(1) of the PSCC Act derives its meaning from the Rent Act or whether it is a wider term including gratuitous licensees; and second, whether a suit by a licensor against a gratuitous licensee is tenable before the Small Cause Court. During the hearing, counsel for the plaintiffs (licensors) argued that the term 'licensee' should be given its general meaning under section 52 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, which covers all licences with or without consideration, and that the Rent Act and PSCC Act are not cognate statutes. The defendants (licensees) relied on the Ramesh Dwarkadas Mehra precedent. The judgment records the arguments and the legislative history of the 1976 amendment to the PSCC Act and the 1973 amendment to the Rent Act. The matter was reserved for judgment on the reference. The full text of the decision is not included in the available excerpt.
Headnote
A) Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 - Jurisdiction - Section 41(1) - Meaning of 'licensee' - Whether the term includes gratuitous licensee - The Full Bench was constituted to resolve the conflict between two Division Benches: Ramesh Dwarkadas Mehra v. Indravati Dwarkadas Mehra (2001(3) ALL MR 668), which held that the expression 'licensee' in section 41(1) derives its meaning from section 5(4A) of the Bombay Rent Act and thus does not cover a gratuitous licensee, and Bhagirathi Lingawade v. Laxmi Silk Mills (LPA No.129 of 1993, decided 3.9.1993), which held that the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act are not relevant for interpreting the scope of section 41. The reference raised the questions whether the meaning of 'licensee' should be taken from the Rent Act or given a wider meaning to include gratuitous licensees, and the consequent jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court. (Paras 1-6) B) Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 - Suit by Licensor against Licensee - Section 41(1) - Tenability of suit against gratuitous licensee - The reference encompassed the direct conflict between the two Division Bench rulings on whether a suit against a gratuitous licensee could be entertained by the Small Cause Court under Chapter VII of the PSCC Act, with the earlier ruling in Bhagirathi Lingawade suggesting a broader jurisdiction and the later ruling in Ramesh Dwarkadas Mehra restricting it to licenses for material consideration only. (Paras 2-6) C) Statutory Interpretation - Cognate Legislation - Whether definitions from Bombay Rent Act apply to PSCC Act - The court heard arguments on whether the PSCC Act and the Bombay Rent Act are cognate statutes sharing a common purpose, such that the restricted definition of 'licensee' in section 5(4A) of the Rent Act could be imported into section 41(1) of the PSCC Act, with one side contending reliance on general definitions and the other urging a harmonious reading to exclude gratuitous licenses. (Paras 8-11)
Issue of Consideration
(i) Whether the expression 'Licensee' used in section 41(1) in Chapter VII of PSCC Act, not having been defined therein, would derive its meaning from the expression 'licensee' as used in sub-section (4A) of section 5 of the Rent Act and/or whether the expression 'licensee' used in section 41(1) of PSCC Act is a term of wider import so as to mean and include a 'gratuitous licensee' also? (ii) Whether a suit by a 'licensor' against a 'gratuitous licensee' is tenable before the Presidency Small Cause Court under section 41 of PSCC Act?
Law Points
- interpretation of section 41(1) of Presidency Small Cause Courts Act
- 1882
- meaning of licensee in PSCC Act
- interplay between PSCC Act and Bombay Rent Act
- jurisdiction of Small Cause Court over gratuitous licensees
- relevance of Indian Easements Act definition
