IMPORTERS AND MANUFACTURERS LIMITED Vs. PHEROZE FRAMROZE TARAPOREWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay passed on 25-1-1952 in Civil Revision Application No. 1119 of 1951. It arises out of a suit filed in the Bombay Small Causes Court under S. 28, Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, for ejectment from and compensation at the rate of Rs. 370 per month from 1-11-1947, for the use and occupation of the second floor flat of Sunama House situated in Cumballa Hill, Bombay. The plaintiffs are the trustees of the will of Framroze D. B. Taraporewala deceased and as such the owners of the Sunama House. The defendants are two in number, namely the first defendant Mrs. Dinbai K. Lala to whom the said flat was let out by the plaintiffs on or about 1-9-1942 at Rs. 370 per month and the second defendant a limited company to whom the first defendant had sublet the said flat as from 16-11-1947 at the same rent. The defendants contested the suit on a variety of grounds, but the trial Court by its judgment dated 18-10-1950 rejected all the pleas and passed a decree directing both the defendants to vacate the flat by 31-3-1951 and awarding, only as against the first defendant Rs. 3,317-10-8 for compensation from 1-11-1947 till 31-7-1948 and thereafter at Rs. 370 per month from 1-8-1948 till delivery of possession besides the costs of the suit.

(2.) The only contention urged before us is that the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. The relevant portions of S. 28 of the Act are as follows :

(3.) The respondents (the plaintiffs) do not contend that the appellant (the second defendant) is a "tenant" as defined in S. 5(11) of the Act. The appellant, on the other hand, does not and, indeed, cannot deny that, as between the plaintiffs and the first defendant, the suit is one between a landlord and a tenant and as such the Small Causes Court is, under S. 28 of the Act, the only Court competent to entertain the suit. Section 28 confers jurisdiction on the Court of Small Causes not only to entertain and try any suit or proceeding between a landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of the premises but also "to deal with any claim or question arising out of this Act or any of its provisions." There is no reason to hold that "any claim or question" must necessarily be one between the landlord and the tenant. In any case, once there is a suit between a landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of the premises the Small Causes Court acquires the jurisdiction not only to entertain that suit but also "to deal with any claim or question arising out of the Act or any of its provisions" which may properly be raised in such a suit. The plaintiffs in this suit claimed that the purported subletting by the first defendant to the second defendant was unlawful both because it was a breach of the terms of the tenancy and also because as the statutory tenant after the determination of the contractual tenancy the first defendant was not entitled to create a sub-tenancy and they questioned the validity of the second defendant's claim to any protection under the Act. The claim or question as to the respective rights of the plaintiffs and the second defendant thus raised in the plaint certainly arises out of the Act and the language of S. 28 appears to be wide enough to cover the same. Apart from that Section, under the ordinary law a decree for possession passed against a tenant in a suit for ejectment is binding on a person claiming title under or through that tenant and is executable against such person whether or not he was or was not a party to the suit. The non-joinder of such a person does not render the decree any the less binding on him. It is in this sense, therefore, that he is not a necessary party to an ejectment suit against the tenant. It is, however, recognised that such a person is, nevertheless, a proper party to the suit in order that the question whether the lease has been properly determined and the landlord plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the premises may be decided in his presence so that he may have the opportunity to see that there is no collusion between the landlord and the tenant under or through whom he claims and to seek protection under the Act, if he is entitled to any, Such a person may be joined as a party to the suit from the beginning of the suit or at any later stage of the suit if the Court thinks fit to do so. The joinder of such a proper party cannot alter the character of the suit and does not make the suit any the less a suit between the landlord and the tenant or take it out of S. 28 of the Act. To hold otherwise will be to encourage multiplicity of suits which will result in no end of inconvenience and confusion. In our view the decision and the reasoning of Chagla, C. J., are substantially correct and this appeal must fail. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.