Skip to content


Kanhaiyalal and anr. Vs. Kanti Lal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Appeal No. 74 of 1958
Judge
Reported inAIR1962Raj106
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 20; Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 - Sections 28
AppellantKanhaiyalal and anr.
RespondentKanti Lal and anr.
Appellant Advocate D.P. Gupta, Adv.
Respondent Advocate P.C. Bhandari, Adv.
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
- - 700/- per year on account of good-will. alleging that the defendant-firm did not pay the amount for the good-will for three years (sm. 6. the plaintiffs maintained the jurisdiction of the civil judge, jaipur-district, jaipur on two grounds (i) that the agreement to pay the rent and the amount for good-will was entered into at jaipur and, therefore, the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the civil judge, jaipur;.....by his heirs and legal representatives kanhaiyalal and ramdas instituted a suit in the court of civil judge, jaipur district, jaipur for the recovery of rs. 2,644-12-6. the plaintiff's case was that he was a tenant of rooms nos. 26 and 28 on the second storey of a building on mumba devi-road, bombay belonging to the estate of laxmi narain gamedali and was liable to pay rs. 35/-per month as rent and rs. 6-5-0 as municipal tax every half year. according to the plaintiff, sometime in the samvat year 2001 chhiganlal on behalf of the joint family firm, now represented by kantilal and kusumchand, took the said room from the plaintiff as a licensee and agreed to pay in addition to the rent and the municipal tax an additional sum of rs. 700/- per year on account of good-will. alleging that.....
Judgment:

L.N. Chhangani, J.

1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal against the appellate order dated 9th July, 1958 of the District Judge, Jaipur-District, Jaipur returning the appellants' plaint for presentation to the proper Court.

2. The relevant facts are these:

The plaintiff Seth Gulab Chand, now dead and represented by his heirs and legal representatives Kanhaiyalal and Ramdas instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur for the recovery of Rs. 2,644-12-6. The plaintiff's case was that he was a tenant of rooms Nos. 26 and 28 on the second storey of a building on Mumba Devi-Road, Bombay belonging to the estate of Laxmi Narain Gamedali and was liable to pay Rs. 35/-per month as rent and Rs. 6-5-0 as municipal tax every half year. According to the plaintiff, sometime in the samvat year 2001 Chhiganlal on behalf of the joint family firm, now represented by Kantilal and Kusumchand, took the said room from the plaintiff as a licensee and agreed to pay in addition to the rent and the municipal tax an additional sum of Rs. 700/- per year on account of good-will. Alleging that the defendant-firm did not pay the amount for the good-will for three years (sm. years 2007, 2008 and 2009) and did not even pay rent and municipal taxes for about fifteen months, the plaintiff instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2,644-12-6.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendants and they inter alia pleaded that the Jaipur Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

4. The trial Court after framing issues and according evidence of the parties decreed the plaintiff's suit. The defendants filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge Jaipur District, Jaipur. The District Judge took into consideration Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Control Act No. LVII of 1947, (hereinafter referred to as Bombay Act) and came to the conclusion that that section debars the institution of any suit for recovery of rent and other charges in respect of any property situated in Greater Bombay in any other court except the court of Small Causes, Bombay, and consequently the Civil Judge, Jaipur had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He accordingly directed the return of the plaint to the plaintiff. The plaintiffs being dissatisfied with the order of the District Judge have filed the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. D. P. Gupta for the appellants and Mr. P. C. Bhandari for the respondents.

6. The plaintiffs maintained the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Jaipur-District, Jaipur on two grounds (i) that the agreement to pay the rent and the amount for good-will was entered into at Jaipur and, therefore, the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Jaipur; and (ii) that the defendants were residents within the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Jaipur.

On these two grounds the suit could be brought in the Court of the Civil Judge under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This position cannot be disputed and has not indeed been disputed by Mr. Bhandari. The question however arises whether Section 28 of the Bombay Act, can be said to affect Section 20, C. P. C. as applicable in Rajasthan and oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in Rajasthan. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a procedural law and, therefore, ordinarily the law in Rajasthan must prevail as against the laws which are not in force in Rajasthan. The Bombay Act is a local law enacted by the Bombay State legislature. Considering the local nature of the law and having regard to the legislative competence of the Bombay Legislature the Bombay Act cannot affect the procedural law in Rajasthan and cannot oust the applicability of Section 20, C. P. C. in Rajasthan.

Further it appears that Section 28 of the Bombay Act is not even of universal application in the Bombay State. Section 2(i) of the Bombay Act states that Parts I and IV of the Act shall extend to the whole of the State of Bombay. Sub-section (2) states that Parts II and III shall extend respectively to the areas specified in Schedules I and II to this Act and shall continue to extend to any such area notwithstanding that the area ceases to be of the description therein specified. Section 28 falls within part II and, therefore, has no universal application even in the Bombay State.

7. In these circumstances, I cannot understand how a provision of the Bombay Act which has a limited applicability can be invoked to oust the jurisdiction of the Rajasthan Courts derived under, Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In my opinion, the view taken by the District Judge is not correct and cannot be maintained. The appeal is consequently accepted. The order of the District Judge Jaipur, District Jaipur returning the plaint for presentation to proper court is set aside and the case is sent back with the direction that the appealshall be heard and disposed of on merits. Thecosts shall abide the result.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //