SHESHDATTA GANESH Vs. GANPAT REVASHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff in suit, being Declaratory Suit No. 5693 of 1971, filed in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay, purported to be one under section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act". The parties will be referred to by their character in the trial Court itself instead of as petitioner and respondent. The question touching upon the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court under section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act has arisen in these proceedings and in the light of the judgment of this Court in (Sarfarzali Nawabali Mirza v. Miss Maneck G. Burjorji Reporter) 78 Bom.L.R. 704 : 1975 Bom.C.R. 450, the question is concluded and the disposal of this petition should not present any difficulty.

(2.) The plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises and according to him one Gajadhar Ramavatar was the licensee. The plaintiff filed an ejectment Application under section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act as it stood before the amendment of 1976. The ejectment application, being No. 91/E of 1970, was decided ex parte and an order for ejectment was passed. While executing this order the defendant obstructed the same. The plaintiff took out Obstructionist Notice bearing No. 613/71 against the and that notice was discharged. The plaintiff therefore, had to filed a suit under Order 21, Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This is the present declaratory suit.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit by contending, among other things, that the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction under section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act to entertain a suit as it was not one between a landlord and a tenant and it was not one where the question under the Bombay Rent Act as mentioned in Sarfarzalis case arises.