BAI AIMAI LIMJIBHAI KAVARANA Vs. MINOO MANCHERSHAW DAVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the mother-in-law of the defendant. THE plaintiff says that after the marriage of her daughter with the defendant, the defendant was allowed to stay in the plaintiff's flat with the plaintiff's leave and license and that the defendant is at present in wrongful occupation of one bed-room in that flat as the license given by the plaintiff to the defendant has been withdrawn. THE plaintiff submits that the defendant is a trespasser in respect of that room and that he is liable to pay damages for trespass at the rate of Rs. 50 per month or at such, other rate as this Court may determine from. June 20, 1948. THE plaintiff prays that the defendant, his servants and agents may be ordered to remove himself and them from the room in the flat with their belongings and that the defendant, his servants and agents may be restrained by an order and injunction of this Court from entering the flat or occupying any room therein; and that the defendant should be ordered to pay to the plaintiff damages at the rate of Rs. 50 per month or at such other rate as this Court may determine from June 20, 1948, till the injunction prayed for becomes effective.

(2.) THE defendant denies that he is the licensee in occupation of the room under a. license from the plaintiff and he says that he is a sub-tenant of the plaintiff. At the hearing the following issues were raised : (1) Whether having regard to the Bombay Rent Control Act XL VII of 1947 and or the Bombay City Civil Court Act 1948, this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit ? (2) Whether the defendant is a licensee or a sub-tenant of the plaintiff ? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any, and if so, what reliefs ? and (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation, and if so, at what rate ?

(3.) THE learned Advocate General referred me to Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887) which reads as follows : Where in suits other than those referred to in the Court-fees Act, 1870, Section 7, paragraphs v. vi ana ix, and paragraph x, Clause (d), court-fees are payable ad valorem under the Court-fees Act, 1870, the value as determinable for the computation of court-fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. Proceeding on the footing that for the purpose of the assessment of the Court-fees Section 7, sub-el, (ad) (cc), applies, he said that the same valuation must apply for the purposes of the determination of the jurisdiction in this case. I pointed out to the learned Advocate General that Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act specifically excluded from its operation Section 7, paragraph (v), of the Court-fees Act (VII of 1870), which reads as follows : In suits for the possession of lands, houses and gardensaccording to the value of the subject-matter; and such value shall be deemed to be etc. etc. THErefore where we are concerned with suits for the possession of lands, houses and gardens, the valuation which is to be determined according to the provisions of Section 7, Sub-clause (v), of the Court-fees Act (VII of 1870), will not be the valuation for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction under the Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887 ). THE learned Advocate General conceded that the suit for the possession of a part of the house would also fall under Section 7, Sub-clause (v), of the Court-fees Act (VII of 1870 ).