RUSTOMJI PESTONJI PIR Vs. SORABJI DADABHOY TATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and decree of Mr. Justice Chagla in a suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for ejectment and for rent and compensation for use and occupation. The suit is filed on the ground that the defendant had made himself obnoxious by a series of acts which amounted to nuisance, and a certificate to that effect of the Rent Controller together with a certificate of the Collector hearing on appeal therefrom have been annexed to the plaint. The Controller, after hearing evidence, came to the conclusion that the standard rent of these premises was Rs. 110 per month, although on the relevant date under the Act the rent paid, according to the plaintiffs respondents, was Rs. 40 per month plus services to be rendered by a relation of his, one Mrs. Khambatta. The certificate states that the standard rent, according to the Controller, is Rs. 110 per month, and the Controller also comes to the conclusion that the defendant-appellant is guilty of creating nuisance sufficient in the eye of the Controller to entitle him to give possession of the premises to the plaintiffs.

(2.) AT the hearing the Suit was fought out on one issue, namely, whether the Rent Controller and the Collector had jurisdiction to fix the standard rent for the purpose of issuing the certificate. This issue was raised on the contention of the defendant to the effect that the Rent Controller and the Collector did not have any jurisdiction either to fix the standard rent or to issue the certificate on which this suit is based, and this is founded, as stated by the trial Judge, on the submission of the appellants that the premises were let out by the plaintiffs to the sister of plaintiff No.2 on May 1, 1940, at. a rent of Rs. 40 per month. The case for the plaintiffs is that the premises were let out at the sum of Rs. 40 per month as nominal rent but that the rent was a composite one in the form of Rs. 40 per month in cash and services to be rendered by the said tenant, Mrs. Khambatta, by looking after the house. It is clear, on a reading of Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, that the rent reserved may be in the form of cash only, or in the form partly in cash and partly in kind, or partly in cash and partly in services, or wholly in services. The defendant contends that in these circumstances, looking to the provisions of Bombay Act VII of 1944, Rs. 40 per month constituted the standard rent of the premises and therefore the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction either to fix the standard rent or to issue the certificate, inasmuch as the relevant Act, namely Act VII of 1944, only applies to premises the standard rent of which exceeds Rs. 80 per month.

(3.) THIS question, to my mind, had to be dealt with by, first of all, on a simple construction of Section 13 (b) as it stands, giving the words their proper effect and giving the words the meaning they necessarily have by the association of the words in the sub-section together with the juxtaposition of the words. On proper canons of construction being applied, apart from any other consideration, I am of the opinion that the words must be applied ejusdem generis, and applied in that manner, they would not cover the case made out by the plaintiffs, namely, where the rent is to be paid partly in cash and partly in the form of services.