HARSWARUP KHANNAMAL Vs. NANDRAM SHRIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A rather important question arises in this appeal as to the effect to be given to the provisions of Section 29a (Rent Act.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by three plaintiffs. The first plaintiff was the tenant of the first defendant. The property was then purchased from the first defendant by the second defendant sometime in 1949 and the property was subsequently purchased from the second defendant by the third defendant. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 contended that they were the lawful sub-tenants of the first plaintiff. A notice to quit was given by the landlord on 6-12-1947 and a suit was filed in the Small Cause Court by the landlord on 29-4-1948. to eject the first plaintiff. To this suit he also made plaintiffs 2 and 3 parties alleging that they were trespassers and had no right to be on the premises. The Small Cause Court raised various issues in that suit) and one issue which it decided and with which we are concerned is that plaintiffs 2 and 3 were not lawful sub-tenants, that the first plaintiff had sublet the premises to plaintiffs 2 and 3 contrary to law, and therefore had deprived himself of the protection of the Rent Act. The Small Cause Court, therefore, passed a decree for ejectment against all three plaintiffs. The three plaintiffs appealed to a Bench of the Small Cause Court and the Bench also upheld the decision of the trial Court on this issue. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed the present suit in the City Civil Court from which this appeal arises, and the suit was substantially by plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the relief that plaintiffs 2 and 3 sought was for a declaration that they were the lawful sub-tenants of the first plaintiff in respect of the premises and entitled to the possession, use and occupation of the said premises as sub-tenants. An issue as to the maintainability of the suit was raised by the City Civil Court and the learned Judge decided that issue in favour of the plain tiffs, but on merits held that plaintiffs 2 and 3 were not lawful sub-tenants and therefore dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The plaintiffs have now come is appeal, and the first question that arises in limine is whether in view of Section 28, Rent Act (Act 57 of 1947) the City Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.

(2.) SECTION 10, Rent Act 1944 provided :

(3.) THE question is whether after the decision of this issue given by the Small Cause Court it is open to the sub-tenant to reagitate this question in the city Civil court. What is urged by Mr. Khambata is that he is entitled to file and maintain this suit by reason of Section 29a, Rent Act. Section 29a provides :