HIRJI LAXMIDAS Vs. FRANCIS FERNANDEZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit was commenced in the Small Cause Court at Bombay, and is brought by the plaintiffs, who are the landlords, against defendant No. 1, who is the tenant, to eject him from 31-D Matarpakhdi, Mazgaon, Bombay, held by him under a monthly tenancy at a rent of Rs. 125 per month. The tenancy is alleged to have been terminated by notice dated April 29, 1943. The defence of defendant No, 1 is to plead the Bombay Rents, Hotel Rates and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1944, which I will refer to as "the 1944 Act", and to rely on the fact that before this Act came into operation the plaintiffs had applied to the Controller for a certificate under the Bombay Rent Restriction Order, 1942, (which I will refer to as "the 1942 Order"), which was refused. Such refusal, it is said, is binding upon the plaintiffs under Section 15 of the 1944 Act.

(2.) In reply the plaintiffs allege that Part II of the 1944 Act is ultra vires and void for the reasons to which I will presently refer.

(3.) It is obvious that the challenge to the validity of Part II of the 1944 Act raises a question of public importance, since if Part II of the Act be invalid, all premises to which it is intended to apply would in effect never have been controlled at all owing to the; invalidity of the 1942 Order. In these circumstances, the Advocate General for Bombay was added as a party to the suit, which was in effect transferred at his request to the High Court and has been heard by this bench. No question is raised by any one as to the regularity or propriety of this procedure.