9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of City Civil Court in suits under Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Whether open land leased for construction of buildings for residence or business constitutes "letting for residence" or "letting for business"? Analysis: The judgment dealt with the issue of jurisdiction of the City Civil Court in suits under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The question at hand was whether open land leased for constructing buildings for residence or business falls under "letting for residence" or "letting for business." The appellant filed suits in the City Civil Courts, Bombay, seeking arrears of rent for premises not covered by the Rent Act. The defendant argued that the Rent Act applied, thus City Civil Court lacked jurisdiction. The primary issue was whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits. Under section 5(8) of the Rent Act, "premises" includes land not used for agricultural purposes, which applied to the land in question. However, Part II of the Act only applies to premises let for residence, education, business, trade, or storage in specified areas. The lease mentioned constructing buildings for various purposes. The contention was whether letting open land for future residential or business use constitutes letting for residence or business. The appellant argued that open land cannot be let for residence, but the Court disagreed. The Court reasoned that open land could be used for residence after building construction, thus falling under "letting for residence." The judgment highlighted that the Act's intention was to cover various purposes, including construction, under "letting for residence, education, business, trade, or storage." The appellant's argument that the Act prohibits subletting buildings constructed on leased land was dismissed. The Court cited a previous case where it was held that leasing land for building construction for residence falls under "letting for residence." In the present case, the leases were for constructing buildings for residential or business purposes, making them premises covered by the Rent Act. The Trial Court and High Court correctly ruled that City Civil Court lacked jurisdiction. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decisions. The judgment clarified that leasing open land for future building construction for residence or business falls under "letting for residence," supporting the previous legal interpretation on the matter.
|
