LAXMIPAT SINGHANIA Vs. LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two suits are ejectment suits filed by a landlord against his two ten -ants. Since the passing of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act (LVII [57] of 1947), this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain or try any suits between a landlord and a tenant to which the provisions of the Act apply; and they are exclusively triable under that Act in Greater Bombay by the Court of Small Causes. The defendants in both these suits have contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to try these suits; and that issue has been ordered by my learned brother Bhagwati J, to be tried as a preliminary issue.

(2.) NOW , the only facts that are relevant for the determination of the question of jurisdiction are that by an agreement of lease dated 12.11. 1918, between the Trustees of the Port of Bombay and one Abraham Jacob Reymond, Reymond agreed to obtain from the trustees and the trustees agreed to grant him a lease of a certain plot of land, for the purpose of putting up a building thereon, for a period of 99 years. To the detailed provisions of this agreement I will revert later. The lease was accordingly granted on 30 -1 -1923, and the plaintiff is the successor -in -title of Reymond, The short question for determination is whether these suits relate to premises which belong to a local authority, because if they do, by the terms of Section 4(1), Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, the Act does not apply to such premises. The words of that sub -section are : 'This Act shall not apply to any premises belonging to the Government or a local authority or apply as against the Government to any tenancy or other like relationship created by a grant from the Government in respect of premises taken on lease or requisitioned by the Government; but it shall apply in respect of premises let to the Government or a local authority.' It is admitted that the Trustees of the Port of Bombay are 'a local authority' by reason of the definition of that term in the General Clauses Act. The only dispute is whether the premises in suit belong to that local authority. Now the word 'premises' is defined by Section 5(8) of the Act as meaning '(a) any land not being used for agricultural purpose ; '(b) any building or part of building let separately, etc......' In the present case the premises consist of parts of a building let separately. The question is whether that building belongs to the Trustees of the Port of Bombay.

(3.) BUT it is urged in this case that although this may be the correct position under Section 108(h), T. P. Act, the Act applies to cases where there is no agreement to the contrary. I have, therefore, to consider the provisions of the agreement to lease as well as the lease. In doing so, the Court is not bound to look, merely to the form which the transaction has taken. The Court is not only entitled but, indeed, bound to consider what is the true nature of the transaction and to give effect to it.