BALDEVDAS SHIVLAL Vs. FILMISTAN DISTRIBUTORS PVT LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) His Lordship after narrating the facts further observed:-] Mr. Nanavati appearing on behalf of the petitioners has raised various contentions. Mr. Nanavati contended that the trial Court if considered as a Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to grant a temporary injunction according to the Small Cause Court Act or Rules framed by the High Court and had no such power invested in it if considered as a special Tribunal dealing with cases that would fall within the purview of sec. 28 of the Rent Act. According to Mr. Nanavati the Court trying matters under the Rent Act was a special tribunal authorized to try special types of suits and one must look to the provisions of the Rent Act which created the special tribunal for the nature and extent of the powers vested in it. If the statute did not give a power to such a tribunal the tribunal would have no jurisdiction and authority to grant any relief relating to such powers with which it was not invested by the Act. Mr. Nanavati referred to sec. 28 of the Rent Control Act and contended that it only gave powers to the Rent Tribunal to try and deal with such matter as were mentioned in the section and that the matter of granting a temporary injunction could not be said to be a matter which fell within the purview of sec.28 As a special Tribunal under the Rent Act contended Mr. Nanavati the Small Causes Court or the Civil Judges Court trying the rent matter could not have powers under the Civil Procedure Code to grant temporary injunction or even inherent powers under the Civil Procedure Code. According to Mr. Nanavati not only there were no inherent powers in the special Tribunal under the Civil Procedure Code but the special Tribunal had no such powers apart from the Code. The power to grant a temporary injunction according to Mr. Nanavati was a matter which did not relate to procedure but which affected substantive rights and therefore unless such a power was specifically conferred. the special Tribunal could not grant a temporary injunction.

(2.) Mr. Nanavati in the course of his arguments made reference to sec. 8 of the Civil Procedure Code which provides that except the provisions mentioned in the section the provisions in the body of the Code shall not apply to suits or proceedings in the Presidency Small Causes Court. Mr. Nanavati also referred to Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Code and to sec. 9 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act. He also referred to the Small Causes Court Rules the combined effect of rule 1(2) and the Schedule being that none of the sections from the Civil Procedure code from secs. 1 to 152 were made applicable to the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad and the First Schedule applied with alterations whereby Order 39 Rules 1 to 5 and 9 were omitted. The argument of Mr. Nanavati was that a Small Cause Court as such had no jurisdiction to grant a temporary injunction and that therefore one would have to turn to the provisions of the Rent Act for the purpose of finding out whether such jurisdiction was vested in the special Tribunal created by the Act. According to Mr. Nanavati the Courts trying rent suits under the Rent Act were special Tribunals and had no more powers than those which were conferred on them by the Act which created them. On this basis it was contended that the jurisdiction that could be exercised by such Tribunals would be according to law by which that Tribunal was constituted and that it was not permissible to call in aid any of the provisions of Civil Procedure Code or inherent powers of a Court to support an action which did not fall within the purview of the special Act or the rules made there under Mr. Nanavati further contended that neither the Rent Act nor the rules framed under the Act gave such powers to the Rent Court of granting a temporary injunction and therefore the order of the trial court was without jurisdiction and unauthorised.

(3.) In order to appreciate these contentions of Mr. Nanavati it would be necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). The relevant section in respect of the jurisdiction of Courts is sec. 28 which is as under:-