EVELYN DIAS Vs. OMPRAKASH JAIGOPAL MAHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the Custodian appointed under the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. Respondent No.1 is the Private Limited Company. Respondent No.1 is the landlord of Flat No.2 in a building known as "Krishna Mahal" at Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020. Respondent No.2 - FFSL is a Company, which has been notified on 2-7-1992 under Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. Respondent No.2 is a tenant in respect of the said Flat No.2. Reshma Estates Private Limited has instituted R.A.E. Suit No.676/ 1245 of 1999 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay for eviction against FFSL - the notified party under the Special Court Act, 1992, inter alia, alleging non-user of premises and wrongful user of premises. In this matter, we are not concerned with the grounds of eviction. However, in the Court of Small Causes Court at Bombay a preliminary question of jurisdiction was raised by the Custodian on behalf of the notified party - FFSL, which is as follows:

(2.) This issue was decided in favour of Reshma Estates Private Limited - Plaintiff/ landlord, inter alia, on the ground that the notified party had possessory title as a tenant in the suit premises which was not transferable and, therefore, attachment of the suit premises by the Special Court did not divest the Small Causes Court of its jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act. That, the above R.A.E. Suit No.676/1245 of 1999 was a suit by the landlord against the tenant for possession of the suit premises and, therefore, the Small Causes Court at Bombay alone has the jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose of the suit under Section 28 of the Rent Act. Being aggrieved by the preliminary order, the Custodian came by way of Appellate Side Writ Petition No.1380 of 2000 which has been assigned to this Court by the learned Chief Justice for disposal.

(3.) Mr. Setalwad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Custodian, submitted that in this case we are not concerned with the merits or the demerits of the claim made by the landlord. That, in this case we are only concerned with the question whether the tenant was liable to be evicted on the grounds enumerated under Section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. That, in this case, we are only concerned with which Court should pronounce on the rights of the parties in the above R.A.E. Suit No.676/1245 of 1999. That, according to the Custodian, statutory tenancy was the property of the notified party and that property became statutorily vested in the Custodian for distribution on 2-7-1992 when FFSL was notified under the Act, 1992. Mr. Setalwad contended that the Special Court Act, 1992 was enacted for a particular purpose and, if one keeps that purpose in mind then, this Court alone has the jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the above R.A.E. Suit No.676/1245 of 1999. He contended that Section 13 of the Special Court Act, 1992 overrides Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act. That, Section 13 of the Special Court Act contains a non-obstante clause which overrides Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. That, the Special Court Act, 1992 is a later enactment vis-a-vis Bombay Rent Act, 1947. That, the Special Court Act, 1992 is a Special Act which applies to a specific type of property viz. the property of the notified party and to that extent, it is a special law vis-a-vis the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 which is a general law which covers eviction and statutory tenancies in all cases. In this connection, Mr. Setalwad relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank vs. Canara Bank & Anr., 2000 AIR(SC) 1535 (para 39).