GANPATDAS RAMDAS Vs. SHARAD SHANKARRAO CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Counsel for the Respondents and the learned Advocate General for the State of Maharashtra.

(2.) THE petitioners being the original tenants, aggrieved by a decree of eviction passed by the Trial Court as well as the order of confirmation passed by the lower Appellate Court, have filed these petitions. In addition to the challenge on merits with regard to the aforesaid two judgments by the trial court as well as the lower Appellate Court, there is also a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 13(1)(hhh) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as "the said Act". In view of the constitutional challenge to the aforesaid section 13(1)(hhh), these petitions have been placed before the Division Bench, otherwise the same would have been placed before the learned single Judge. Since the constitutional validity of section 13(1)(hhh) of the said Act is involved, the learned Advocate General for the State of Maharashtra has also appeared before us to assist us on this issue.

(3.) SIMILARLY , the learned Counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment reported in 1996(4) Bombay Cases Reporter- Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. V/s Tayebhai Mohammedbhai Bagasarwalla and others. This case also relies on the earlier referred judgment of Krishna Laxman Yadav. The issue involved in this case was whether the suit would lie in the Bombay City Civil Court or the Court of Small Causes at Bombay, in case the tenant seeks a relief against the landlord by way of specific performance. Ultimately this Court had held that, in such a case where the dispute is between a tenant and landlord, the issue would be squarely within the provisions of Section 28 of the said Act and held that the proper Court would be the Court of Small Causes Bombay and not the City Civil Court at Bombay. Hence, even this judgment will not be of any help to the petitioners with regard to the constitutional challenge of section 13(1)(hhh) of the said Act.