2009 (9) TMI 944 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the suit filed by the owner of the suit premises was maintainable before the Small Causes Court, Bombay? Whether the Small Causes Court at Bombay had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Small Causes Court, Bombay.
2. Definition and rights of a tenant under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947.
3. Application of Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Small Causes Court, Bombay:
The primary issue for consideration was whether the suit filed by the owner of the suit premises was maintainable before the Small Causes Court, Bombay. The defense argued that the Small Causes Court did not have jurisdiction if the plaintiff asserted that the respondent was not a tenant. The court referenced Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947, which provides exclusive jurisdiction to specific courts, including the Small Causes Court in Greater Bombay, to entertain suits or proceedings between a landlord and a tenant relating to recovery of rent or possession of premises. The court concluded that the Small Causes Court at Bombay had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the owners because the appellants did not recognize the respondent as a tenant.

2. Definition and Rights of a Tenant under the Act:
The court examined the definition of "tenant" under Section 5(11) of the Act, which includes any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable and extends to members of the tenant's family residing with the tenant at the time of death. The respondent claimed tenancy rights as she was residing with the deceased tenant and was considered a family member. The Small Causes Court initially dismissed the suit, recognizing the respondent's claim to tenancy rights under Section 5(11)(c)(i) of the Act. The appellate court upheld this decision, noting that the respondent was a member of the deceased tenant's family and residing with her at the time of death, thus fulfilling the requirements to be considered a tenant under the Act.

3. Application of Article 142 of the Constitution of India:
The appellants requested the Supreme Court to exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to direct the respondent to vacate the suit premises, citing prolonged litigation. Article 142 allows the Supreme Court to pass orders to ensure complete justice. However, the court noted that this power should not supplant substantive law or statutory provisions. The court referenced past judgments, emphasizing that Article 142 should be used sparingly and not to contravene statutory provisions. Consequently, the court declined the appellants' request to use Article 142 to order eviction.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 5786 of 2002, concluding that the Small Causes Court at Bombay lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 5787 of 2002 was also dismissed. The court directed that if the appellants filed a new suit along with an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the time from the original suit's institution to the present day would be excluded from the limitation period. The court also directed that any such new suit and consequent appeals or revisions be disposed of within one year, given the prolonged duration of the case.