MIRABELLE HOTEL CO PVT LTD Vs. MANU SUBEDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Application came up for hearing before Mr. Justice Kantawala and was referred by the learned Judge to a Division Bench as it involves a somewhat complicated question of law.

(2.) RESPONDENTS 1 to 5 are trustees of a public charitable trust which owns two buildings at Marine Drive in Bombay. The trustees are referred to hereafter as the plaintiffs. The petitioners in this revision application are a private limited Company which runs a hotel. They are the first defendants in the suit from which this revision application has arisen and are referred to hereafter as the defendants. By an indenture of lease dated 8th June 1948, the plaintiffs let out to the defendants certain portions from the said two buildings for a period of ten years commencing from 1st June 1948. The period of the lease expired on 1st June 1958. On 26th April 1963, the plaintiffs served a notice on the defendants terminating their tenancy from the end of May 1933. The plaintiffs then filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay for possession of the premises on the ground that the defendants had committed breaches of the terms and conditions of the lease. Thereafter on 4th June 1964 the plaintiffs filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court which has led to the present revision application. The plaintiffs prayed in the suit that the defendants should be permanently restrained from fixing any partitions, frames, wood works, fittings or fixtures, from carrying on any kind of carpentry work or masonry work, from carrying on any kind of alterations or additions and from storing any timber, boards, etc. in or about the premises in dispute. The plaintiffs also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from giving any portion of the premises to any person except on the basis of furnished accommodation inclusive of board and service. In support of these prayers the plaintiffs relied on the terms and conditions of the said lease dated 8th June 1948. The plaintiffs averred in paragraph 4 of the plaint.

(3.) AFTER filing the suit the plaintiffs took out a Notice of Motion for interim injunctions, in the same terms as in the plaint. The interim injunctions were granted by the trial Court. The defendants approached this Court in appeal from the order granting the interim injunctions. At the hearing of the appeal Mr. Justice Nain directed that the trial Court should hear the parties and decide as a preliminary issue whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the plaintiffs' suit. The preliminary issue was" heard by Judge Lentin of the City Civil Court. The learned Judge held that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. This decision is challenged by the defendants in this revision application.