MOTILAL M. MEHRA Vs. RUTTY HOMI BHARUCHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question in this petition is whether in a suit filed by a tenant for injunction restraining an owner of the property which is in his possession from using the premises for non-residential purpose attracts the provisions of Section 25 of the Bombay Rent Act and thus it falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rent Control under Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act.

(2.) FACTS in this case are not in dispute. The petitioner is an owner of a building in Colaba which has four floors including the ground floor. The third floor is set out to respondent-plaintiff and she is occupying it as a tenant. The ground floor and first floor are admittedly in exclusive possession as owner thereof and are not tenanted to anybody. Desiring to open a guest house on the ground floor, the petitioner got the necessary plans sanctioned and has obtained all the necessary no objection certificates from the police, and from the Housing and Area Development Board. He has also obtained the commencement certificate from the Municipal Corporation. According to him, he has spent a large amount on furnishings and making necessary alterations on the ground floor.

(3.) BEFORE considering the prayer for injunction, the trial Court considered the question of jurisdiction and it seems to have taken the view that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit because the plaintiff's right of enjoyment of his own premises was likely to be affected by opening a lodging house on the ground floor which is not a ground on which the injunction has been sought. It appears that the petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the appeal Bench of the Small Causes Court which was, however, dismissed summarily as not maintainable. The petitioner has now challenged the order of the trial Court in this petition.