C C BASU Vs. PATEL DAHYABHAI VAGHJIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opponents in both these Civil Revision Applications are the same. The petitioners in the two Civil Revision Applications are different. The opponents in both these Civil Revision Applications are the landlords and the petitioners in each of these Civil Revision Applications are the tenants occupying different portions of the same building which is situated at Baroda. The plaintiffs had filed two suits against these two different tenants for recovery of possession of the premises in suit and the suits were originally filed in the Court of the Civil Judge Sr. Dn. Baroda. Thereafter both these suits were transferred. So far as the suit from which Civil Revision Application No. 197 of 1966 arises is concerned it was transferred to the Court of the 5th Joint Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Baroda and so far as the suit from which Civil Revision Application No. 106 of 1966 arises is concerned it was transferred to the Court of the 6th Joint Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Baroda. While these suits were pending in the Courts of the 5th and the 6th Joint Civil Judges Jr. Dn. Baroda respectively the District Judge Baroda passed an order under sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure transferring these two suits to the Court of the Joint Civil Judge Sr. Dn Baroda. After both these suits were thus transferred an application was filed by the respective defendant in each of these two suits contending that under the provisions of sec 28 of the Bombay Rents Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) it was only the Court of Civil Judge Jr. Dn. functioning at Baroda that had exclusive jurisdiction to try these suits under the Act and therefore the Court of the Joint Civil Judge Sr. Dn. had no jurisdiction to try and dispose of the suits. The learned trial Judge dismissed both these applications by separate judgments which were both on the same lines and the present two Civil Revision Applications have been filed against the judgment and orders in these two suits.

(2.) The same point is involved in both the Civil Revision Applications and I will dispose of both of them by this common judgment.

(3.) The contention on behalf of the petitioners in these two Civil Revision. Applications is based on the wording of sec. 28 of the Act and so far as is relevant the words of the section are: