RAMDULAR SARJO DHOBI Vs. ISMAIL SULEMAN KASAM MULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question involved in this petition is whether the Bombay City Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the plaintiffs' suit in view of the defendants' contention that the suit would fall within the scope of section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act"). The trial Court came to the conclusion that the Court has jurisdiction and Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act has no application to the facts as pleaded in the plaint. This revision application has been referred against the said judgment.

(2.) SINCE the question of jurisdiction has to be decided on the basis of the averments made in the plaint, it is better that I straight away go to the averments made in the plaint.

(3.) THE plaint shows that the land as such belonged to the Bombay Municipal Corporation and the plaintiffs claimed to be the lessees in respect of the land. It has been averred in the plaint that the plaintiff's predecessor was collecting rent from the defendants from time to time and it has been pleaded that they are his legal tenants. It is also stated in the plaint that some of the tenants failed and neglected to pay the rent due to the plaintiffs for more than six months and the suits have been filed against them for recovery of possession of the rooms in their occupation and the arrears of rent due by them to the plaintiffs. Those suits are pending in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay.