Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. Moreover, the above arguments urged by Mr. Chagla and Mr. Shah in support of their contention that the notice has ceased to be efficacious are all without any substance. This is particularly so because once a notice is issued under Section 354 to the owner, the owner is liable to be prosecuted for non - compliance with the notice under Section 471 (b), unless he obtains an order S. 507 directing the occupiers of the building to afford all reasonable facilities to the owner for complying with the notice. Section 507 (3) further lays down :-

24. The next contention urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the learned Chief Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the applications under Section 507 as the owners had a special remedy under the special statute, viz., the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 for recovering possession of the premises in the possession of the tenants if the Court under that Act is satisfied under Section 13 (1) (hhh) that the premises are required for the immediate purpose of demolition ordered by any local authority or other competent authority. Apart from authority, in our opinion, the contention must be rejected, because it is only in respect of suits or proceedings between landlords and tenants relating to recovery of rent or possession of any premises to which Bombay Rent Act applied and in respect of applications made under that Act or any claim or question arising out of the Act or any of its provisions that the jurisdiction of other Courts is excluded under Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act. The application made by the owners under Section 507 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act does not fall under any of the categories of suits or proceedings referred to in Section 28(1) of the Bombay Rent Act. It cannot be said that an application under Section 507 relates to the recovery of possession of the premises because Section 507 empowers the Chief Judge to make a written order "requiring the occupier of the building or land to afford all reasonable facilities to the owner for complying with the notice". Section 507 is not concerned with the termination of the tenancy or recovery of the possession of the premises but only with providing reasonable facilities to the owner to comply with a notice issued to him under the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. Such a question cannot be said to be a claim or question arising out of the Bombay Rent Act or any of its provisions. The tenancy is not terminated before or by making an application under Section 507. Section 507 enables the owner to get an order from the Chief Judge directing the occupants to give reasonable facilities and merely states that if the occupiers fail to afford the facilities after 8 days from the date of the order, the owner shall be discharged, during the continuance of such refusal, from any liability which he would otherwise incur by reason of his failure to comply with the said provision or requisition. It is true that the consequence of the refusal is that the occupants made themselves liable to be prosecuted under Section 471, as stated above. But this is not a question or claim arising out of any provisions of the Bombay Rent Act and we find nothing conflicting between S. 13(1)(hhh) and Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act and Section 507 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act from which we could infer an implied repeal of Section 354 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. On the contrary, having regard to the nature and purpose of these provisions, it is clear that these sections can exist together and the applications made by the owners under Section 507 were maintainable notwithstanding Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act. In Mohmed Haji Noormohamed v. Mona Vicaji Javeri Miabhoy, J. as he then was, was concerned with a contention which was the reverse of the contention raised before us. In that case, a suit filed under Section 13(1)(hhh) in the Small Causes Court was contested on the ground that it was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 507 and, with respect, he rightly held that when the owner of the building had availed himself of the remedy given in Section 507 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, he was not disentitled to the further remedy provided to him under Section 13(1)(hhh) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947.

26. As stated above, the reliefs under Section 507 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act have nothing in common or similar to the claims or questions which arise under the Bombay Rent Act and hence, the said decision relied on by Mr. Shah has no application to the facts of the present case. It must, therefore, be held that there is nothing in Section 13(1)(hhh) or S. 28 of the Bombay Rent Act which takes away the jurisdiction of the Chief Judge under Section 507 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act.

27. Mr. Shah who appeared for some of the petitioners, urged two further points in support of the petition. The first of them was that under Section 507 the learned Chief Judge could not have ordered the occupants to vacate the premises. In support of his argument Mr. Shah relied on the decision in Ahmedalli Abdulhusein Kaka v. M. D. Lalkaka, which lays down the principles which should followed by the Chief Judge when dealing with the cases under Section 507 and gives him a discretion to decide whether th occupants should be asked to vacate the entire building or a portion of the building. But, in our opinion, there is no substance in this contention of Mr. Shah because all that the learned Chief Judge has ordered in the present case is that the occupants should remove themselves "in other to afford facilities to respondent No. 1 to enable him to comply with the notice." The said order is consistent with the provisions of Section 507 (2) which empowers the Chief Judge to require the occupiers "to afford all reasonable facilities to the owner". The powers here are wide enough to include a power to order the occupant to vacate the premises if that is necessary for giving a reasonable facility to the owner.