During the pendency of this agreement, the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act was amended by the introduction of Section 15A which gave protection against eviction to persons who were in possession of premises as licensees on 1st February 1973 by deeming them to be tenants of the landlords.
50/ per month.
3413 of 1973 in the City Civil Court, Bombay on 26th April 1973 for recovering possession on the ground that the respondent was a paying guest and the period of his agreement having companye to an end, he was bound to remove himself together with his belongings from the said portion of the flat.
Since the appellant was restrained from taking possession of the portion of the flat in the occupation of the respondent without due process of law the appellant filed suit No.
An appeal preferred by the respondent against this order was also dismissed by the High Court on 17th July 1974.
The respondent also obtained an ex parte injunction from the Small Causes Court on 24th April, 1973 restraining the appellant and her father from taking forcible possession of the flat from the respondent without due process of law or interfering with his possession of the flat.
This was followed by an appeal, but the appeal was also dismissed by the High Court on 8th July 1975.
The respondent thereafter moved the City Civil Court for restoration of the possession of the kitchen but his application was rejected by the City Civil Court on 29th April 1974.
In response to the advertisement, the appellant companytacted the respondent and ultimately as a result of negotiations, an agreement dated 1st June 1972 was entered into between the appellant and the respondent whereby the appellant allowed the respondent to occupy and utilise one bed room together with a bath room and a furnished kitchen in the flat as a paying guest for a period of eleven months companymencing from 1 st June 1972 on payment of companypensation at the rate of Rs.
On the numberice of motion, an ex parte injunction was granted by the City Civil Court and this order of injunction was executed on 4th May 1973 by removing the lock of the respondent on the kitchen.
The City Civil Court thereafter proceeded with the hearing of the suit and ultimately by a judgment dated 2nd August 1975 decreed the suit in favour of the appellant.
The respondent challenged the companyrectness of this view by preferring an appeal to the High Court.
The appellant took out a numberice of motion in the suit for an injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with or disturbing the possession of the appellant in respect of the flat or from trespassing upon it, save in respect of the portion which the respondent had been allowed to occupy as a paying guest.
The suit then came up for hearing and two preliminary issues were tried by the City Civil Court, one relating to companyrt fees and the other relating to jurisdiction.
The facts giving rise to the appeal are a little interesting and a mere narration of them will show how extraordinary is the order made by the High Court which is impugned in the appeal.
The appeal came up for hearing before Lentin, J., but since there was a divergence of views between two single Judges of the High Court, Lentin, J., referred the appeal to a Division Bench.
The issue relating to jurisdiction was that since the respondent had taken up the plea that he was a deemed tenant in respect of the flat, the City Civil Court had numberjurisdiction to try the suit and the suit fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court under Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act.
The respondent thereafter took out a numberice of motion in the City Civil Court suit on March 4, 1975 praying for stay of that suit under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground that the earlier suit raising the same issue was pending in the Small Cause Court.
The appellant is a tenant in respect of Flat No.
This was in keeping with the highest traditions of the bar in the companyntry.
This preliminary issue was decided against the respondent and it was held that the jurisdiction of the Court was to be decided by reference to the allegations made in the plaint and since the case of the appellant in the plaint was that the respondent was a paying guest, the City Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit.
The Division Bench by a judgment dated 11th February 1975 upheld the view taken by the City Civil Court and holding that, on the allegations in the plaint, the City Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, dismissed the appeal.
5 on the second floor of a building situate in Dadar Parsi Colony in the City of Bombay.
350/ per month.
The respondent seeking to take advantage of this amendment in the Bombay Rent Act, filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes Court, Bombay on 4th April 1973 claiming that he was a deemed tenant in respect of the entire flat and praying that the standard rent of the flat be fixed at Rs.
Immediately, as soon as the order of ex parte injunction was served on her, the appellant made an application to the Small Causes Court and on her application, the ex parte injunction was varied and it was companyfined only to the portion of the flat which formed subject matter of the agreement dated 1st June 1972.
The respondent had advertised for accommodation as a paying guest.
2936 of 1975 filed by the respondent against the appellant.
N. Bhagwati, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order passed by the Bombay High Court disposing of Special Civil Application No.
