BOMBAY GRAIN DEALERS ASSOCIATION Vs. LAKSHMICHAND VASANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of Mr. Justice Deshpande. The plaintiffs respondents is a partnership firm. The trial Court had returned the plaint to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper Court on the ground that it had no jurisdiction. The plaintiffs filed an appeal to this Court which was heard by Mr. Justice Deshpande. He allowed the appeal and held that the Court had jurisdiction in the matter. Against this judgment the defendants filed the present appeal.

(2.) THE question is one of construction of the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act and in order to find whether the trial Court had jurisdiction or not in the matter the nature of the plaintiff's suit will have to be considered. The plaint consists of 12 paragraphs and the final paragraph contains the reliefs. Shortly stated the plaintiffs alleged that it is a monthly tenant of room No. 10 on the first floor and the entire terrace on the second floor of the defendants' building known as "grain Dealers Building" situated at 103, Keshavji Naik Road, Bombay 9. The plaintiffs have constructed a shed in the said terrace. On May 4, 1966 the defendants forcibly, unauthorizedly, illegally high-handedly and maliciously and with mala fide intention demolished and pulled down the eastern side parapet wall of the terrace. When this was objected to, the defendants and their representatives threatened to throw out the plaintiffs and their goods and by show of force prevented and restrained the plaintiffs from entering into possessing using any occupying the terrace for the purpose of their business and for storing their goods. they also allege that on May 5, 1966 the employees of the defendants belaboured, assaulted, insulted and intimidated the partners and the servants of the plaintiffs-firm. Eventually a complaint in respect of this was lodged at the Dongri Police Station, that the defendants by force and show of force took the law into their own hands, committed breach of peace and prevented the plaintiffs from exercising their legal right to possess, use and occupy the terrace of which they are tenants of the defendants. In the relief clause they claimed (1) a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to possession and occupation of the terrace on the second floor as tenants. (2) that the defendants, their servants and agents be restrained from interfering with their possession and/or obstructing them in the quiet and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said terrace (3) that by a mandatory injunction they be directed to re-erect side parapet wall of the terrace and to reinstate the same into its original condition. The rest of the prayers are not material.

(3.) THE question is whether the present suit governed by the provisions of Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act. This question has been considered in a large number of cases and we will therefore refrain from reproducing the section in its entirety. It commences with the words. "notwithstanding anything contained in any law" and it purports to vest special jurisdiction in the Courts named in Cls (a) and (b) of sub-s. (1) in respect of matters enumerated by it. It gives jurisdiction to these Courts (1) to entertain (b) any suit or (b) proceeding between a landlord and a tenant (2) relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises to which the provisions apply (3) to decide any application made under this Act and (4) to deal with (a) any claim or (b) question arising out of the Act or any of its provisions. There is a further clause which excludes the jurisdiction of any other Court in respect of any such (1) suit (2) proceeding (3) application or (4) deal with such claim or question.