Gujarat High Court
Rameshbhai Babarbhai Jagirdar And Anr. vs Mahendrabhai Chhotalal Joshi And Anr. on 12 July, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1997)1GLR514
JUDGMENT Y.B. Bhatt, J.
1. The present appeal is filed by the original plaintiffs whose suit was dismissed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for recovery of a specific amount from the defendants, who are admittedly the landlords of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contended that they are entitled to the recovery of the suit amount in as much as the same was recovered from them by the defendants-landlords by way of premium and/or deposit, which was illegal and/ or not permissible under the Bombay Rent Act.
2. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, maily on the ground of limitation. Although the learned Counsel for the appellants made an effort to pursuade me that the finding of the trial Court in this context is not correct, I do not propose to discuss this finding in detail in view of the following considerations.
3. It is an admitted fact, and in fact, asserted by the plaintiffs that the defendants-landlords had recovered a certain amount from the plaintiffs, which amount, according to the plaintiffs would amount to an illegal recovery since the same was prohibited by specific provisions of the Bombay Rent Act or at any rate, not authorised by the Rent Act. The suit was, therefore, filed by the appellants for the purpose of recovering this amount back from the landlords.
4. The essential question which would then arise is whether the trial Court, as a Civil Court of ordinary jurisdiction, would have jurisdiction to decide this question. Section 28(1) of the Bombay Rent Act specifically contemplates that--"Section 28(1):
Notwithstanding anything contained in any law and notwithstanding that by reason of the amount of the claim or for any other reason, the suit or proceeding would not, but for this provision, be within its jurisdiction.
(a) in the City of Ahmedabad, the Court of Small Causes of Ahmedabad.
(aa) in any area for which a Court of Small Causes is established under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, such Court, and
(b) elsewhere, the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) having jurisdiction in the area in which the premises are situate or, if there is no such Civil Judge, the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) having ordinary jurisdiction.
shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try any suit or proceeding between a landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises to which any of the provisions of this Part apply and to decide any application made under this Act and to deal with any claim or question arising out of this Act or any of its provisions and subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), no other Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any such suit, proceeding or application or to deal with such claim or question.
5. It is not in dispute, and in fact, asserted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the basis of the plaintiffs' suit is the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and the controversy in the suit is as regards the legality of the amount originally collected by the landlords from the tenants. It is, therefore, obvious that this is a dispute which can only be decided by the designated Courts under Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act. Consequently, no other Court, including a Civil Court of ordinary jurisdiction, would have jurisdiction to hear and decide a suit of this nature and character. The learned Counsel for the appellants was not able to controvert this position in law.
6. In as much as this question is a fundamental question of jurisdiction going to the root of the matter, I have considered the same, although no specific issue has been raised by the trial Court in this regard. It may, however, be noted, that the defendants have in their written statement contended that the amount recovered by them from the plaintiff-tenant is not an illegal recovery under the Rent Act as averred by the plaintiffs. In view of this contention taken by the defendants-landlords, I am of the opinion that a specific issue as to jurisdiction should have been raised by the trial Court. However, that does not mean that this Court, even in the absence of such an issue, cannot consider a question as fundamental as the jurisdiction of the trial Court, particularly since it is a pure question of interpretation of the Statute, and does not require any evidence to resolve.
7. In the premises aforesaid, the dismissal of the suit by the trial Court is justified in law, and therefore, the present appeal requires to be dismissed. The same is accordingly summarily dismissed.