PRAFUL HARIRAI MUNSHI Vs. KANAKBEN CHANDRAKANT DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioners were the original opponents, whereas the present respondent was the original applicant in P.S.R.P. No. 16 of 1985 filed in the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad under the provisions of Sec. 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 ('the Act' for short).

(2.) The relevant and pertinent facts, in brief, are as under :

(3.) It may also be noted that the objections to Exh. 39/A raised by the original applicant (Exh. 40) contend that the rent received by the landlord is the only figure which can be considered to be 'rack rent' and that the amount of municipal tax, education cess and electricity consumption charges cannot be included in such 'rack rent'. However, during the course of hearing of Exh. 39/A, the controversy was narrowed down. The trial Court has specifically observed in para 10 of its order that the controversy upon which the matter rests is only on the question of inclusion or exclusion of electricity consumption charges. The trial Court has specifically noted the statement made by learned Advocates for the respective parties that even if the municipal tax and education cess were added to actual rent, the figure would still be less than Rs. 5,000.00 and consequently the Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the main application. This figure would exceed Rs. 5,000.00 if electricity consumption charges were also added, in which case the Court would not have jurisdiction to entertain the application under Sec. 41 of the said Act. Thus, the only controversy raised and now surviving, would be in respect of inclusion or otherwise, of electricity consumption charges. I have been taken through the relevant case law on the subject, viz., the case of Lakhamshi Hiralal and Co. v. Damji Himji and Co., ( 70 BLR 394), the decision in Swastic Bearing Company v. Dasharathlal,[1989 (2)] XXX (2) GLR 879, the decision in Panchal Mohanlal Ishwardas v. Maheswari Mills Ltd., (1962) III GLR 507, and the decision in Khemchand v. Mohammadbhai, [(1965) VI GLR 829].