TRIBHOVANDAS PURSHOTTAMDAS THAKKAR Vs. CHIMANLAL KESHAVLAL RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed the present suit for a declaration that he is the tenant of the defendants in respect of the suit premises and for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession of the suit premises.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly stated are as under. On 7th February 1956 the defendants let out to the plaintiff shop wherein the plaintiff had been carrying on business since the date of its letting. He quietly and peacefully carried on his business until 28th September 1963. On that day he appears to have closed his shop and gone out for a pilgrimage. On 13th December 1963 the plaintiff returned from his pilgrimage. On his return when he went to his shop he found to his dismay and surprise that his shop and the building of which it was a part were demolished by the defendants. They had put up a new construction thereon. Actually the construction was in progress According to the plaintiff on 14th December 1963 he went to the defendants to inquire as to what had happened to his shop and the stock in trade which he had left in his shop before he went for a pilgrimage According to him the defendants are said to have given him a consoling reply in as much as they according to him assured him of a new shop at the same place and in the same building. Further according to the plaintiff. on 17th December 1963 the defendants let him into possession of the new shop which the plaintiff has been presently occupying. It appears that between 17th December 1963 and 12th February 1964 when the plaintiff filed the present suit there were some criminal proceedings between the parties. These criminal prosecutions have no significance whatsoever for the purpose of this case except for the purpose of explaining why the plaintiff took about two months time from 17th December 1963 to 12th February 1964 to institute the present suit. It is not necessary for me to refer to those criminal prosecutions in details because the question of delay or laches has not been argued before me. On 12th February 1964 the plaintiff-tenant according to him. having found that the defendants had been interfering with his possession of the new shop instituted the present suit for a declaration that he is the tenant of the defendants in respect of the suit premises and for a permanent injunction to restrain them from interfering with his possession.

(3.) The defendants resisted the suit principally on two grounds. According to them on 1st October 1963 the plaintiff had surrendered the tenancy and possession of his old shop which the defendants had demolished. Secondly according to them on 2nd January 1964 the plaintiff had committed trespass by entering into the new shop which he has been presently occupying. The present suit was instituted in the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad which has special jurisdiction under sec. 28 of the Bombay Rent Act to entertain and try it. It is needless to say that if sec. 28 of the Bombay Rent Act does not govern the present suit the Court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction to entertain it.