9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (2) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Small Causes Courts Act") , 1882 or whether it is cognizable by the City Civil Court, Bombay, constituted under the Bombay City Civil Act." The High Court by the impugned judgment in these appeals has taken the view that such a suit is not maintainable before the City Civil Court and should be filed in the Small Causes Court, Bombay, under Section 41(1) of the Small Causes Courts Act. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended before us that the said view is not correct. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has supported the same view. Before we consider the aforesaid question, a few relevant facts leading to both these appeal deserve to be noted at the outset. FACTS IN C.A. NO. 4913 OF 1989 The appellant-plaintiffs filed suit No. 1290 of 1984 in the Bombay City Civil Court against the respondent-defendant for permanent injunction on the ground that the appellants are in possession of the suit shop. That the respondent-defendant is tenant of the suit premises being Shop No. 4, Meghji Vallabhdas Trust Building, Bhavanishankar Road, Dadar, Bombay. That the defendant took the same premises in December, 1974 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties came to the conclusion that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He agreed with the view taken by Guttal, J. Thereafter the matter was placed before the Division Bench for final orders and in the light of the decision reached by Guttal, J. and Pendse, J., the revision application was allowed and it was held that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On an application by the appellants for certificate under Article 133(1), the Division Bench granted the certificate as prayed for and that is how this civil appeal has been filed in this Court and has reached hearing before us. FACTS IN C.A. NO, 4753 OF 1989 : The appellant-plaintiff filed Suit No. 7508 of 1984 in the City Civil Court at Bombay against the respondents for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-defendants, their servants and agents from dis-possessing the appellant-plaintiff from the suit premises being 505-A, Neel Kanth, 98, Marine Drive, Bombay, save and except by due process of law. A further injunction was also sought, restraining the respondents from in any manner obstructing or interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between a licensor and licensee, or a landlord and tenant, relating to the recovery of possession of any immovable property situated in Greater Bombay, or relating to the recovery of the license fee or charges of rent thereof, irrespective of the value of the subject matter of such suits or proceedings." A mere look at the aforesaid provision makes it clear that because of the non-obstante clause contained in the section, even if a suit may otherwise lie before any other court, if such a suit falls within the sweep of Section 41(1) it can be entertained only by the Court of Small Causes. In the present proceedings we are not concerned with the provisions of sub- section (2) of Section 41(1) and hence we do not refer to them. For applicability of Section 41(1) of the Small Causes Courts Act, the following conditions must be satisfied before taking view that jurisdiction of regular competent civil court like City Civil Court is ousted. (i) it must be a suit or proceeding between the licensee and licensor; or (ii) between a landlord and a tenant; (iii) such suit or proceeding must relate to the recovery of possession of any property situated in Greater Bombay; or (iv) r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ood deal of difference between the words "relating to the recovery of possession" on the one hand and the terminology "for recovery of posses-sion of any immovable property". The words "relating to" are of wide import and can take in their sweep any suit in which the grievance is made that the defendant is threatening to illegally recover possession from the plain-tiff-licensee. Suits for protecting such possession of immovable property against the alleged illegal attempts on the part of the defendant to forcibly recover such possession from the plaintiff, can clearly get covered by the wides weep of the words "relating to recovery of possession" as employed by Section 41(1), In this connection, we may refer to Blacks" Law Dictionary Super Deluxe 5th Edition. At page 1158 of the said Dictionary, the term "relate" is defined as under: "to stand in some relation, to have bearing or concern, to pertain, refer, to bring into association with or connection with." It cannot be seriously disputed that when a plaintiff- licensee seeks permanent injunction against the defendant- licensor restraining the defendant from recove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zeez, following and ap-proving Nitai Charan Bagchi v. Suresh Chandra Paul, Shyam Lal v. M. Shyamlal and 76 Corpus Juris Secundum 621. Assuming that the investments in shares and in lands do not form part of the undertakings but are different subject matters, even then these would be brought within the purview of the vesting by reason of the above expressions. In this connection reference may be made to 76 Corpus Juris Secundum at pages 620 and 621 where it is Stated that the terms "relate" is also defined as meaning to bring into association or connection with. It has been clearly mentioned that "relating to" has been held to be equivalent to or synonymous with as to "concerning with" and "pertaining to". The expression "pertaining to" is an expression of expansion and not of contraction." It is, therefore, obvious that the phrase 'relating to recovery of possession' as found in Section 41(1) of the Small Causes Court Act is comprehensive in nature and takes in its sweep all types of suits and proceedings which are concerned with the recovery of possession of suit property from the licensee and, therefore, suits for pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between the licensee and licensor while Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act deals with suits between landlord and tenant. But the nature of such suits as contemplated by both these sections is the same, namely, it should be the suit relating to the recovery of possession of premises. Interpreting the phrase 'relating to recovery of possession' as found in Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court in the case of Babulal Bhummal and Anr. v. Nandram Shivram and Ors., [1959] S.C.R. 367, held that a suit for declaration that one of the plaintiffs was the tenant of the defendant landlord and the other plaintiffs were his sub-tenants and they were entitled to be protected from evidence squarely falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court, Bombay, under Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act and jurisdiction of the City Civil Court for entertaining such a suit is excluded. Imam, J. Speaking for the three-Judge Bench in that case observed at page 374 of the report as under : "The present suit filed in the City Civil Report raised in substance a claim to the effect that the plaintiffs were the tenants of the premises within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... landlord and tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises or between a licensor and a licensee relating to the recovery of license fee or charge and to decide any application made under the Act and to deal with any claim or question arising out of the Act of any of its proceedings, and negatively it excludes the jurisdiction of any other Court from entertaining any such suit, proceeding or application or dealing with such claim or question: After analysing the previous decisions of this Court in Babulal Bhuramal, Raizada Topandas etc., this Court held at page 483B as follows : The relationship between the parties being that of licensor-landlord and licensee-tenant and the dispute between them relating to the possession of the licensed-demised premises, there is no help from the conclusion that the Court of Small Causes alone has the jurisdiction and the Arbitrator has none to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties." It was submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that in these two cases plaintiffs had prayed for declaration of their status. While in the present cases on such declaration is sought. In our view this will make no diff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, it would be a suit between a licensee and licensor relating to the recovery of possession. Analogy drawn by Sawant, J. from cases under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 on the clear averments in the plaints in present cases is also not apposite. It is trite to say that Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act given a summary remedy to the plaintiff to seek restoration of possession from the defendant within six months of illegal recovery of possession by the defendant, without referring to the title of the plaintiff and defendant. It is purely a possessory suit wherein status of the party is irrelevant. In such type of suits the plaintiff is not required to prove his title or a superior right to possession as compared to the defendant and has only to show that he was in possession of the suit immovable property and he was illegally dispossessed within a period of six months prior to the date of the suit. Once the plaintiff proves this case, he becomes entitled to succeed and can get status quo ante and restoration of possession of the suit premises through the assistance of the Court. In given cases, even injunction suits purely based on previous peaceful possession and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
