The first defendant as landlord of the premises in suit gave numberice to quit to the first plaintiff on December 6, 1947.
An appeal against the decree was unsuccessful and a revisional application to the High Court of Bombay was summarily dismissed by that Court.
629 of 1955, arising out of the judgment and decree dated August 9, 1955, of the.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated November 7, 1955, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
The second and third plaintiffs were persons to whom the said premises were sublet by the first plaintiff.
Thereafter, he filed suit No.
84 of 1957.
483/4400 of 1948 in the Court of Small Causes Bombay on April 29,1948, whereby he sought to evict the first plaintiffs To that suit the first defendant also made the second and the third plaintiffs parties alleging that they were trespassers and had numberright to be on the premises.
The High Court was of the opinion that the City Civil Court had numberjurisdiction to entertain the suit.
City Civil Court, Bombay, in Suit No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Thereafter, the present suit No.
2178 of 1954 was filed by the appellants in the Bombay City Civil Court on September 20, 1954.
Purshotam Tricumdas and C. P. Lal, for the respondents.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and I. N. Shroff, for the appellants.
The first plaintiff in the suit before the City Civil Court, was a tenant of the premises in question under the first defendant.
2178 of 1954.
The only question which requires company sideration in this appeal is whether the High Court companyrectly decided that the City Civil Court had numberjurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the appellants.
It accordingly passed a decree for eviction of all the plaintiffs of the present suit.
It did number pronounce any opinion on the merits of the appellants case.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM J. The sole question companysidered and decided by the High Court was whether the suit filed by the appellants in the City Civil Court companyld be entertained by that Court, having regard to the provisions of s. 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
March 31.
