9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, to open land let for constructing buildings. 2. Application of the doctrine of res judicata. 3. Jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Borivli, to entertain the application for determination of standard rent. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, to open land let for constructing buildings: The appellant, under an indenture dated August 2, 1950, leased 555 sq. yards of land in village Pahadi, Taluka Borivli, from the respondent for constructing buildings for residential or business purposes. The appellant constructed buildings on the land and subsequently filed an application for determining the standard rent of the land under Section 11 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Borivli, rejected the application, holding that the Act did not apply to open land let for constructing buildings. This decision was confirmed by a single judge of the Bombay High Court. However, in a subsequent case, the Bombay High Court held that whether Section 6(1) of the Act applies to any particular lease must be determined on its terms, and a building lease in respect of an open plot is not excluded from Section 6(1) solely because the land may be used for residence or educational purposes only after a structure is built thereon. Relying on this judgment, the appellant filed a fresh petition, which was again rejected by the Trial Judge. 2. Application of the Doctrine of Res Judicata: The Trial Judge and subsequent courts held that the question of whether Section 6(1) of the Act applied to open land let for constructing buildings was res judicata, as it had been finally decided by the High Court between the same parties in the earlier proceeding for fixation of standard rent. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure enacts the general rule of res judicata, which precludes any court from trying any suit or issue that has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties and has been heard and finally decided by a competent court. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Borivli, was competent to try the application and held that Section 6(1) did not apply. The High Court assumed that a decision relating to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain or not to entertain a proceeding is binding and conclusive between the parties in respect of the same question in a later proceeding. 3. Jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Borivli: The Supreme Court noted that the doctrine of res judicata belongs to the domain of procedure and cannot determine the question relating to the interpretation of an enactment affecting the jurisdiction of a court. A decision of a competent court on a matter in issue may be res judicata in another proceeding between the same parties, but a pure question of law unrelated to facts cannot be deemed to be a matter in issue. The Court held that a previous decision on a matter in issue is a composite decision, and a decision on an issue of law will be res judicata in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties if the cause of action is the same. However, a question relating to the jurisdiction of a court cannot be deemed to have been finally determined by an erroneous decision of the court. If the court erroneously holds that it has no jurisdiction, the question does not operate as res judicata. Therefore, the decision of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Borivli, that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for determination of standard rent was erroneous. Conclusion: The appeals were allowed, and the orders passed by the High Court and the Court of Small Causes were set aside. The proceedings were remanded to the Court of First Instance to be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the law. There was no order as to costs throughout. Appeals Allowed.
|
