Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 51 (0.27 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 26 in The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 [Entire Act]
Ramkishore Pandit vs Vijayabahadursingh Jagtapsingh on 9 April, 1963
18. Before parting with these cases, we may mention that the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ambalal v. Narmada (1963)4 Guj LR 90 has taken the view that a suit where plaintiff claims that he is entitled to possession and seeks a permanent injunction restraining the respondent-landlord for recovering possession would fall under Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, The very same view was taken by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ramkishore v. Vijayabahadursingh .
Section 15 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920
Dilip Murlidhar Lodiya vs Mohd. Azizul Haq Mohd. Abdul Haq on 8 February, 1989
Thus, the provisions in both these Acts are pari materia and interpretation on words "relating to the recovery of possession" in Section 41(1) applies with full vigour to Section 26(1) of Act. The provisions of Act quoted above leave no manner of doubt that an exclusive forum and procedure has been prescribed for ventilation of all grievances between landlord and tenants or licensors and licensees, as the case may be. The Section 26(1) opens with non obstante clause which needs to be given full effect. Clause 17 in Schedule II of the Act would be superfluous if Section 7 of Civil Procedure Code alone is held to bar jurisdiction of Small Cause Court to grant injunction in landlord/tenant and licensee/licensor matters. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (supra) was not available then and the other rulings considered therein have not been brought to the notice of this Court when it decided Dilip Murlidhar Lohiya v. Mohd. Azizul Haq Court reported at 1990 Mh.L.J. 249 : AIR 1990 Bombay 228. In view of subsequent rulings of Hon'ble Apex Court squarely on the point, reliance upon it by learned Advocate Deopujari for petitioners is totally misconceived.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Abdul Aval @ Chakuwalla vs Sayed Mohamed Ali Usmanali And Ors. on 3 August, 2000
In Abdul Aval v. Sayed Mohamed is upon Section 28 of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947) in which learned single Judge has in fact relied upon this Full Bench judgment. It is not necessary to refer to all these rulings at length because the above referred judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court considers provisions of said Section 28 and also the two Bombay High Court rulings. Hon'ble Apex Court states in paragraph 14 that when Section 41(1) of the Small Cause Courts Act is read in juxtaposition with the aforesaid Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, it becomes clear that pari-materia words are used about nature of suits, in both these provisions for conferring exclusive jurisdiction on Small Causes Courts, namely, they alone can entertain such suits or proceedings relating to recovery of possession of premises. It is of course true that Section 41 of the Small Causes Court Act deals with such suits between the licensee and licensor while Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act deals with suits between landlord and tenant. But the nature of such suits as contemplated by both these sections is the same, namely, it should be the suit relating to the recovery of possession of premises. The wide interpretation given to said phrase even under Bombay Rent Act has been found to be proper and relied upon by Hon'ble Apex Court. Reference may be made to certain observations in paragraph 18 :