PRAKASH KESHAWARAO SURYAVANSHI Vs. ASHA RAMDAS SURYAVANSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question involved in this revision is whether provision of Section 28 of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 is attracted to the suit or not ?

(2.) THE trial Court held that Section 28 is not attracted and hence the Small Causes Court, Bombay is having no jurisdiction to decide the suit, while the Bench of Small Causes Court of Bombay held otherwise.

(3.) IN the plaint filed by the respondent No. 1 it was averred that father of the petitioner was the elder brother of her husband. They were members of joint family. Her husband died in 1985. Thereafter the father of respondent No. 1 also expired. The suit premises were taken for purpose of business in the year 1951. They were taken for benefit and on behalf of joint family. However, the rent receipt was issued in the name of the petitioner's father as he was elder brother and Karta of the family. The partition took place in the family between the brothers in 1958. In the said partition the suit premises were given to the husband of respondent No. 1 while premises at Vardha Building were given to the father of the petitioner. Husband of respondent No. 1 and after his death respondent No. 1 went on paying rent directly to the landlord respondent No. 2 and she was in exclusive possession of the same. However, on 25.4.1986 at about 5.30 p.m. the respondent No. 1 along with some other members came to the suit premises and demanded possession and threatened her to dispossess. The respondent No. 1 also apprehended that landlord i.e. respondent No. 2 might transfer the rent receipt in the name of petitioner. This required her to file the suit for injunction.