{"id":184442,"date":"1963-04-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1963-04-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raizada-topandas-anr-vs-ms-gorakhram-gokalchand-on-22-april-1963"},"modified":"2015-08-26T12:20:22","modified_gmt":"2015-08-26T06:50:22","slug":"raizada-topandas-anr-vs-ms-gorakhram-gokalchand-on-22-april-1963","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raizada-topandas-anr-vs-ms-gorakhram-gokalchand-on-22-april-1963","title":{"rendered":"Raizada Topandas & Anr vs M\/S. Gorakhram Gokalchand on 22 April, 1963"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Raizada Topandas & Anr vs M\/S. Gorakhram Gokalchand on 22 April, 1963<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 1348, \t\t 1964 SCR (3) 214<\/div>\n
Author: S Das<\/div>\n
Bench: Das, S.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAIZADA TOPANDAS & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S.  GORAKHRAM GOKALCHAND\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n22\/04\/1963\n\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nSARKAR, A.K.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1964 AIR 1348\t\t  1964 SCR  (3) 214\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1978 SC1217\t (35)\n RF\t    1980 SC1605\t (16)\n RF\t    1981 SC 537\t (19)\n RF\t    1991 SC1494\t (7)\n\n\nACT:\nJurisdiction  of Court-Suit filed in City Civil Court  alle-\nging  that defendant was a licensee-Prayer  for\t injunction-\nDefendant  alleging relation of landlord and  tenant-Whether\nsmall causes court has exclusive jurisdiction-Bombay  Rents,\nHotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bom.\tLXII\nof 1947), ss.28,29,29A.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe respondent Is a partnership firm.  It instituted a\tsuit\nin  the Bombay City Civil Court against the  appellant.\t  It\nwas  alleged  in the plaint that by virtue of  an  agreement\nappellant  No. I appointed the respondent as his  commission\nagent for the sale of his cloth in the shop which was in the\npossession  of the respondent.\tThe agreement was to  remain\nin  force  for four years.  Persuant to\t the  agreement\t the\nappellants,  their family members, servants and agents\twere\nallowed\t by  the respondent to visit the shop only  for\t the\npurpose of looking after the business of commission  agency.\nOn the expiry of the agreement the appellants had no further\nrights to enter into the shop.\tThe respondent prayed for  a\ndeclaration  that it was in lawful possession of  the  shop,\nfor  an injunction restraining the appellants, their  family\nmembers, servants and agents from entering into the shop and\nfor  an\t amount\t of  commission\t payable  to  it  under\t the\nagreement.  The plaint proceeded on the footing that\n 215\nduring\tthe  period of agreement the  appellants  were\tmere\nlicensees  and after the expiry of the agreement  they\twere\nmere  trespassers.   The  plaint  in  terms  negatives\t any\nrelationship  of landlord and tenant as between the  parties\nto  the\t suit.\tThe defence of the appellants was  that\t the\nrespondent had sublet the shop to them at a certain  monthly\nrent.  But since no subletting is possible under the  Bombay\nRents,\tHotel  and Lodging House Rates\tControl\t Act,  1947,\nwithout\t the  consent of the land-lord the  parties  entered\ninto  a sham agreement which was never acted upon and  which\nwas  only  a cloak to conceal the  true\t relationship.\t The\nrelationship  was that of a land-lord and tenant.  On  these\naverments  in the written statement the appellants took\t the\nplea  that  the\t Court\tof Small  Causes  Bombay  alone\t had\njurisdiction to try the suit.\nThe  City  Civil Court relying on a decision of\t this  Court\nupheld\tthe contention of the appellants and made  an  order\nthat  the plaint be returned for presentation to the  proper\ncourt.\tThe respondent thereupon appealed to the High Court.\nThe High Court held that on a correct interpretation of s.28\nof  the Act the suit out of which the appeal had arisen\t was\nnot a suit within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of\nSmall Causes Bombay and setting aside the order of the\tCity\nCivil  judge directed that it should dispose of the suit  in\naccordance  with  law.\t The present appeal  is\t by  way  of\nspecial\t leave.\t In the appeal the same question as  to\t the\njurisdiction of the City Civil Court was raised.\nHeld  (per S.K. Das and M. Hidayatullah, JJ.) that S. 28  no\ndoubt  gives  exclusive jurisdiction to the Court  of  Small\nCauses\tto entertain and try a suit or proceeding between  a\nlandlord  and  a  tenant relating to  recovery\tof  rent  or\npossession of any premises to which any of the provisions of\nPart   II  of  the  Act\t apply;\t it  also  gives   exclusive\njurisdiction to decide any application under the Act and any\nclaim  or  question  arising out of the Act or\tany  of\t its\nprovisions.\nSection\t 28 does not invest the Court of Small\tCauses\twith\nexclusive  power  to try questions of title as\tbetween\t the\nrightful  owner\t and a trespasser or a\tlicensee,  for\tsuch\nquestions  do  not arise under the Act.\t  If  therefore\t the\nplaintiff  in  his plaint does not admit  a  relation  which\nwould attract any of the provisions of the Act on which\t the\nexclusive  jurisdiction\t given\tunder  S.  28  depends,\t the\ndefendant by his plea cannot force the plaintiff to go to  a\nforum where on his own averments he cannot go.\tIf the\tsuit\nas framed is by a land-lord or a tenant and the relief asked\nfor is in the nature of a claim which arises\n216\nout  of the Act or any of its provisions then only  and\t not\notherwise will it be covered by S. 28.\tThe City Civil Court\nhad  jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the\t High  Court\ncorrectly came to that conclusion.\nAnanti\tv.  Ghhannu,  (1929) I.L.R. 52\tAll.  501  Govindram\nSalamatrai  v.\tDharampal,  (1951) 53 Bom.   L.R.  386,\t and\nJaswantlal  v.\tWestern Company, India (1959), 61  Bom.L  R.\n1087, approved.\nBabulal\t Bhuramal  v.  Nandram Shivram<\/a>\t[1959]\tS.C.R.\t367,\nexplained.\nPer Sarkar, J. The suit is not one between a land-lord and a\ntenant\tfor  recovery of possession of premises\t and  there.\nfore  it  does\tnot come under the  first  kind\t of  matters\nmentioned  in  s. 28(1).  The suit does not come  under\t the\nsecond\tkind  mentioned in that section as that\t deals\twith\ncertain applications only.\nSection 28 thirdly provides that no court other than a Court\nof  Small  Causes shall have jurisdiction to deal  with\t any\nclaim\tor  question  arising  under  the   Act\t  concerning\nproperties in Greater Bombay.  This part of the section does\nnot purport to affect any court's jurisdiction to  entertain\nand  try  a suit but it only prevents a court  from  dealing\nwith  certain claims and questions.  Therefore a  court\t may\ntry  a\tsuit in so far as it does not thereby have  to\tdeal\nwith a claim or question arising out of the Act.\nIt  is unnecessary to decide the dispute whether it is\tper-\nmissible  under\t the  section to look  at  the\tdefence\t for\nascertaining  whether  a claim or question  under  the\tAct,\narises\tin the suit because even the defence in the  present\ncase  does  not raise any claim or question under  the\tAct.\nThe defence really is that the appellants arc not licensees.\nThat  being so, the only question that the suit involves  is\nwhether\t the  appellants are licensees of the  shop.   Quite\nclearly,  such a question is neither a question nor a  claim\narising\t out of the Act.  Neither is a question whether\t the\nappellants  are sub-tenants one arising out of the  Act\t for\nthe Act says nothing as to the creation of a tenancy.\nNo  discussion of any question or claim arising out  of\t the\nAct is necessary for deciding the suit.\n 217\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 75 of 1962.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and decree  dated
\nOctober 19, 1959, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 152
\nof 1959.\n<\/p>\n
N.   C.\t Chatterjee,  J.B.  Dadachanji,\t O.  C.\t Mathur\t and
\nRavinder Narain, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
A.   V. Viswanatha Sastri and D. D. Sharma, for respondents.
\n1963.  April 22.  The judgment of S.K. Das and Hidayatullah,
\nJJ. was delivered by Das J… Sarkar J., delivered separate,
\njudgment.\n<\/p>\n
S.K.  DAS J.-The only question which arises in\tthis  appeal
\nis,  whether  on  a proper interpretation of s.\t 28  of\t the
\nBombay\tRents,\tHotel and Lodging House Rates  Control\tAct,
\n1947  (Bombay  Act LVII of 1947) the Court of  Small  Causes
\nBombay had exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the suit\t out
\nof which this appeal has arisen.\n<\/p>\n
 The respondent before us is a partnership firm.  It was  in
\npossession as a tenant of a shop No. 582\/638, at Mulji Jetha
\nMarket,\t Bombay.   It instituted a suit in the\tBombay\tCity
\nCivil  Court  (to be distinguished from the Court  of  Small
\nCauses, Bombay) in which it asked for (1) a declaration that
\nit  was\t in lawful possession of shop No. 582\/638  at  Mulji
\nJetha  Market, Bombay and that the present  appellants\t(who
\nwere  the defendants in the suit) or their  family  members,
\nservants  or agents had no right to enter into or remain  in
\npossession  of\tthe  said  shop\t ;  (2)\t for  an  injunction
\nrestraining  the present appellants, their  family  members,
\nservants  and agents from entering into the said shop ;\t and
\n(3)  for  an  amount of commission payable to  it  under  an
\nagreement
\n218<\/span>
\ndated June 23, 1955.  The main averments in the plaint\twere
\nthat  by the aforesaid agreement defendant No. 1,  appellant
\nNo. 1 before us, appointed the respondent as his  commission
\nagent  for the sale of the appellants’ cloth in the shop  in
\nquestion.  The agreement was to remain in force for a period
\nof  four years expiring on June 30, 1959.  Pursuant  to\t the
\nagreement,  the appellants, their family  members,  servants
\nand agents were allowed by the respondent to visit the\tshop
\nonly  for  the\tpurpose of looking  after  the\tbusiness  of
\ncommission  agency.   On  the expiry of\t the  agreement\t the
\nappellants  had no further right to enter into the shop\t and
\nin  paragraphs 10 and 11 of the plaint\tthe  respondent-firm\n<\/p>\n
-alleged  that some commission was due to it and further  it
\nasked  the  appellants\tnot to disturb\tthe  possession\t and
\npeaceful  enjoyment of the shop by the respondent ; but\t the
\nappellants, their servants and agents were visiting the shop
\ndaily  and preventing the respondent from having  access  to
\nits  various  articles\tsuch  as  stock-in-trade,  books  of
\naccount,  furniture, fixtures etc.  On these  averments\t the
\nrespondent-firm\t asked\tfor  the reliefs to  which  we\thave
\nearlier referred.  The plaint proceeded on the footing\tthat
\nduring the period of the agreement the appellants were\tmere
\nlicensees,  and after the expiry of the agreement they\twere
\ntrespassers and had no right to be in the shop.\t The  plaint
\nin  terms negatives any relationship of landlord and  tenant
\nas between the parties to the suit.\n<\/p>\n
The  substantial  defence  of the appellants  was  that\t the
\nrespondent-firm\t had sublet the shop to the appellants at  a
\nmonthly\t rent of Rs. 500\/ ; but as no sub-tenancy  could  be
\nlegally\t created  at the time, without the  consent  of\t the
\nlandlord,  by  reason  of the provisions  of  the  Act,\t the
\nrespondent-firm\t with  a view to safeguard its\tposition  in
\nregard\tto  the\t penal provisions of the  Act  required\t the
\nappellants to enter into a sham agreement in the shape of  a
\nletter dated June 30, 1952.  The agreement was never acted
\n 219<\/span>
\nupon  and  was intended to be a cloak to  conceal  the\ttrue
\nnature\tof the transaction.  The appellants further  alleged
\nthat  the  agreement  dated  June 23,  1955,  was  also\t not
\noperative between the parties, and the true relation between
\nthe  parties  was  that of landlord and\t tenant.   On  these
\naverments  in the written statement the appellants took\t the
\nplea  that as the question involved in the suit\t related  to
\nthe  possession\t of premises as between a landlord  and\t his
\ntenant,\t the  Court  of\t Small\tCauses,\t Bombay,  alone\t had
\njurisdiction to try the suit.\n<\/p>\n
On  these pleadings a preliminary issue as  to\tjurisdiction
\nwas  framed by the City Civil Court, Bombay and\t this  issue
\nwas in these terms:\n<\/p>\n
“Whether  this court has jurisdiction to entertain  and\t try
\nthis suit ?”\n<\/p>\n
The  learned  judge  of the City Civil Court  relying  on  a
\ndecision  of  this  court in  Babulal  Bhuramal\t v.  Nandram
\nShivram<\/a> (1), decided the preliminary issue in favour of\t the
\npresent\t  appellants.\t He  held  that\t in  view   of\t the
\nobservations of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision,
\nan  earlier decision of the Bombay High Court  in  Govindram
\nSalamatrai  v.\tDharampal (2), which had taken\ta  different
\nview  was  of no assistance to the present  respondent,\t and
\nmust be deemed to have been over-ruled by the Supreme  Court
\ndecision.  We may state here that the decision in  Govindram
\nSalamatrai  (2) , had itself over-ruled an earlier  decision
\nof the same court in Ebraham Saleji v. Abdulla Ali Raza (3),
\nwhere Gajendragadkar J. (as he then was) had taken the\tview
\nthat  s. 28 of the Act included within its jurisdiction\t all
\nsuits and proceedings where the trial court has to  consider
\nall  claims  or questions arising out of the  Act.,  and  it
\nmakes  no difference whether such claim or  question  arises
\nfrom the allegations made in the plaint or those made in the
\n(1) [1959] S.C.R.  367.\n<\/p>\n
(2)(1951) 53 Bom.  L.R, 886,
\n(3)  (1950) 52 Bom.  L.R. 897 ,
\n220<\/span>
\nwritten\t statement.   The learned judge of  the\t City  Civil
\nCourt accordingly made an order that the plaint be  returned
\nto  the present respondent for presentation to\ttile  proper
\ncourt.\n<\/p>\n
An  appeal was taken by the present respondent to  the\tHigh
\nCourt of Bombay from the decision of the learned City  Civil
\njudge.\t The  High Court pointed out in its  judgment  dated
\nOctober\t 19,  1959, that the ratio of the decision  of\tthis
\ncourt\tin  Babulal  Bhuramal’s\t case  (1),  was   correctly
\nexplained  in a later decision of the Bombay High  Court  in
\nJaswantlal v. “Western Company, India” (2) and on a  correct
\ninterpretation\tof  s.\t28 of the Bombay  Rents,  Hotel\t and
\nLodging Houses Rates Control Act, the suit out of which this
\nappeal\thas  arisen  was not a\tsuit  within  the  exclusive
\njurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay.  The High
\nCourt  said that the decision in Babulal Bhuramal  (1),\t did
\nnot in effect hold, nor did it justify any interpretation to
\nthe effect, that s. 28 of the Act made a departure from\t the
\ngeneral principle that governs the question of jurisdiction,
\nwhich  is  that jurisdiction at the inception of,  the\tsuit
\ndepends\t on  the  averments made in the plaint\tand  is\t not
\nousted by the defendant saying something in his defence.  In
\nthis  respect, the High Court accepted as correct  the\tview
\nexpressed  by  Chagla C. .J. in\t Govindram  Salamatrai\t(3),
\nrather than the view of Gajendragadkar, J. in Ebrahim Saleji
\n(4).   In this view of the matter the High Court  held\tthat
\nthe City Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit out of
\nwhich  the appeal has arisen.  It, therefore, set aside\t the
\norder  of the learned City Civil judge and directed that  it
\nshould now dispose of the suit in accordance with law.\t The
\nappellants  then asked for special leave to appeal  to\tthis
\ncourt  from the judgment and decree of the High\t Court,\t and
\nhaving\tobtained  special leave have preferred\tthe  present
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1959] S.C.R. 367\t     (2) (1959) 61 Bom.\t I.h. 1087,
\n(3) (1951) 53 Bom, L.R\t     (4) (1950) 52 Bom.\t L,R. 997,
\n 221<\/span>
\nThe Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act,
\n1947 was enacted, to amend and consolidate the law  relating
\nto the control of rents and repairs of certain premises, of.
\nrates of hotels and lodging houses and of evictions, In Part
\nII of the Act there are provisions which make rent in excess
\nof standard rent illegal, provisions relating to increase of
\nrent,\tprovisions  as\tto  when  a  landlord  may   recover
\npossession,  when  a sub-tenant becomes a  tenant,  unlawful
\ncharges\t by landlord etc.  All these proceed on the  footing
\nthat  there  is\t or was, at the\t inception,  a\trelation  of
\nlandlord  and tenant between the parties.  In the same\tPart
\noccur  ss.  28.\t 29 and 29-A.  Section\t28  which  we  shall
\npresently  read\t deals with jurisdiction of courts ;  s.  29
\ndeals  with  appeals, and s. 29-A is a section\twhich  saves
\nsuits\tinvolving   title.   The  particular   section\t the
\ninterpretation\tof which is in question before us is  s.  28
\nand we shall read only sub-s. (1) thereof in so far as it is
\nrelevant for our purpose.  This subsection reads…\n<\/p>\n
\t      “28. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
\n\t      any law and notwithstanding that by reason  of
\n\t      the  amount of the claim or for any other\t re-
\n\t      ason,  the suit or proceeding would  not,\t but
\n\t      for    this   provision,\t be    within\t its
\n\t      jurisdiction.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   in\tGreater Bombay, the Court  of  Small
\n\t      Causes, Bombay,
\n\t      (aa) xx\t\txx\t   xx\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (b)  xx\t\txx\t   xx………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 shall have jurisdiction to entertain and  try
\n\t      any  suit or proceeding between a\t land.\tlord
\n\t      and a tenant relating to the recovery of\trent
\n\t      or possession of any premises to which any  of
\n\t      the provisions of this Part apply and to
\n\t      222<\/span>
\n\t      decide any application made under this Act and
\n\t      to deal with any claim or question arising out
\n\t      of  this\tAct  or any of\tits  provisions\t and
\n\t      subject to the provisions of sub-section\t(2),
\n\t      no  other\t court shall  have  jurisdiction  to
\n\t      entertain any suit, proceeding or\t application
\n\t      or to deal with such claim or question.  ”\n<\/p>\n
\t      S.29-A also has some relevancy and may be\t set
\n\t      out here…\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Nothing\tcontained in section 28 or 29  shall
\n\t      be deemed to bar a party to a suit, proceeding
\n\t      or  appeal  mentioned  therein  in  which\t  -a
\n\t      question\tof title to premises arises  and  is
\n\t      determined, from suing in a competent court to
\n\t      establish his title to such premises.”\n<\/p>\n
Leaving\t out  what is unnecessary for  our  purpose  s.28(1)
\nstates\tthat notwithstanding anything contained in  any\t law
\nand  notwithstanding  that by reason of the  amount  of\t the
\nclaim or for any other reason, the suit or proceeding  would
\nnot, but for this provision, be within its jurisdiction, the
\nCourt\tof  Small  Causes  in  Greater\tBombay\tshall\thave
\njurisdiction  to  entertain and try any suit  or  proceeding
\nbetween a landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery  of
\nrent  or  possession  of any premises to which\tany  of\t the
\nprovisions  of this Part (meaning thereby Part II apply\t and
\nto  decide  any application made under the Act and  to\tdeal
\nwith any claim or question arising out of the Act or any  of
\nits provisions and no other court shall have jurisdiction to
\nentertain  any\tsuch suit, proceeding or application  or  to
\ndeal  with any such claim or question.\tIt is to be  noticed
\nthat  the  operative part of the subsection  refers  to\t two
\nmatters: (a) any suit or proceeding between a landlord and a
\ntenant\treletting to the recovery of rent or  possession  of
\nany premises to which any of the provisions of Part II apply
\nand (b) any application made under the Act or any claim or
\n 223<\/span>
\nquestion  arising out of this Act or any of its\t provisions.
\nWhat is the true effect of sub-s.(I) of s.28 with regard  to
\nthe  aforesaid\ttwo  matters?\tDoes it\t mean  that  if\t the
\ndefendant raises a claim or question as to the existence  of
\na  relationship of landlord and tenant between him  and\t the
\nplaintiff,  the\t jurisdiction  of the City  Civil  Court  is
\nousted\teven  though the plaintiff pleads that there  is  no
\nsuch  relationship, and the only court which  has  exclusive
\njurisdiction  to try the suit is the Court of Small  Causes,
\nBombay ? That is the question before us.\n<\/p>\n
In answering this question it is perhaps necessary to  refer
\nto  the\t general  principle  which  admittedly\tgoverns\t the
\nquestion  of jurisdiction at the inception of  suits.\tThis
\ngeneral principle has been well explained in the Full  Bench
\ndecision of the Allahabad High Court, Ananti v. Chhannu (1),
\nand bag not been disputed before us.  It was observed there:\n<\/p>\n
\t      The plaintiff chooses his forum and files\t his
\n\t      suit.   If he establishes the  correctness  of
\n\t      his  facts  he will get his  relief  from\t the
\n\t      forum  chosen: If … he frames his suit in  a
\n\t      manner  not warranted by the facts,  and\tgoes
\n\t      for  his relief to a court which cannot  grant
\n\t      him relief on the true facts, he will have his
\n\t      suit   dismissed.\t  Then\tthere  will  be\t  no
\n\t      question\t of   returning\t  the\tplaint\t for
\n\t      presentation  to\tthe proper  court,  for\t the
\n\t      plaint, as framed, would not justify the other
\n\t      kind    of    court   to\t grant\t  him\t the
\n\t      relief…………… … If it is found, on a
\n\t      trial  on the merits so far as this  issue  of
\n\t      jurisdiction  goes, that the facts alleged  by
\n\t      the  plaintiff  are  not true  and  the  facts
\n\t      alleged  by the defendants are true, and\tthat
\n\t      the case is not cognizable by the court, there
\n\t      will be two kinds of orders to be passed.\t  If
\n\t      the  jurisdiction\t is  only  one\trelating  to
\n\t      territorial  limits or pecuniary\tlimits,\t the
\n\t      plaint  will  be ordered to  be  returned\t for
\n\t      presentation to the
\n\t      (1)   (1929) I. L R. 52 All, 501.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      224<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      proper  court.  If, on the other hand,  it  is
\n\t      found that, having regard to the nature of the
\n\t      suit, it not Cognizable by the class of  court
\n\t      to  which the court belongs,  the\t plaintiff’s
\n\t      suit   will  have\t to  be\t dismissed  in\t its
\n\t      entirety.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Having\tregard\tto the general principle  stated  above,  we
\nthink that the view taken by the High Court in this case  is
\ncorrect.  S. 28 no doubt gives exclusive jurisdiction to the
\nCourt  of  Small  Causes  to entertain and  try\t a  suit  or
\nproceeding  between  a\tlandlord and a\ttenant\trelating  to
\nrecovery of rent or possession of any premises to which\t any
\nof the provisions of Part II apply; it also gives  exclusive
\njurisdiction to decide any application under the Act and any
\nclaim  or  question  arising out of the Act or\tany  of\t its
\n‘provisions—all this notwithstanding anything contained in
\nany  other  law.  The argument of learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellants  is\tthat  the  section  in\teffect\tstates\tthat
\nnotwithstanding\t  any  general\tprinciple,  all\t claims\t  or
\nquestions  under the Act shall be tried exclusively  by\t the
\ncourts\tmentioned  in the section, e.g. the Court  of  Small
\nCauses in Greater Bombay, and it does not matter whether the
\nclaim  or  question  is\t raised\t by  the  plaintiff  or\t the
\ndefendant.  ‘The argument is plausible, but appears to us to
\nbe  untenable on a careful scrutiny.  We do not\t think\tthat
\nthe  section  says or intends to say that the  plea  of\t the
\ndefendant  will determine or change the forum.\tIt  proceeds
\non  the\t basis that exclusive jurisdiction is  conferred  on
\ncertain\t courts to decide all questions or claims under\t the
\nAct   as  to  parties  between\twhom  there  is\t or  was   a
\nrelationship  of  landlord and tenant.\tIt does\t not  invest
\nthose courts with exclusive power to try questions of title,
\nsuch  as  questions  as between the  rightful  owner  and  a
\ntrespasser  or a licensee, for such questions do  not  arise
\nunder  the Act.\t If, therefore, the plaintiff in his  plaint
\ndoes  not  admit a relation which would attract any  of\t the
\nprovisions of the Act on which the exclusive jurisdiction
\n 225<\/span>
\ngiven  under  s.  28  depends, we  do  not  think  that\t the
\ndefendant  by  his plea can force the plaintiff to go  to  a
\nforum\twhere\ton  his\t averments  he\t cannot\t  go.\t The
\ninterpretation\tcanvassed  for by the appellants  will\tgive
\nrise to anomalous results; for example, the defendant may in
\nevery  case force the plaintiff to go to the Court of  Small
\nCauses\tand  secondly, if the Court of\tSmall  Causes  finds
\nagainst\t the  defendant’s plea-, the plaint may have  to  be
\nreturned  for presentation to the proper court for a  second
\ntime.  Learned counsel for the appellants has argued in\t the
\nalternative  that the Court of Small Causes need not  return
\nthe  plaint a second time, for his contention is that  Court
\nhas  “exclusive” jurisdiction to decide the case whenever  a
\nclaim  is made under the Act even though the claim is  found
\nto be false on trial.  We do not think that this  contention
\ncan  be accepted as correct, for to do so would be  to\thold
\nthat the Court of Small Causes has exclusive jurisdiction to
\ndecide\tquestion of title, which is clearly negatived by  s.
\n29-A.\tAnomalous results may not be a conclusive  arguments
\nbut  when  one has regard to the provisions in\tPart  11  it
\nseems  reasonably  clear  that\tthe  exclusive\tjurisdiction
\nconferred  by  s.28 is really dependent on  an\texisting  or
\nprevious relationship  of landlord and tenant and on  claims
\narising under the Act as between such parties.
\nDealing with a similar argument in Govindram Salamatrai\t (1)
\nChagla, C.J. said :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “There  can be no doubt that when a  plaintiff
\n\t      files a suit against a defendant alleging that
\n\t      he is his licensee, it is a suit which  cannot
\n\t      be  entertained and tried by the Small  Causes
\n\t      Court  because  it  is not a  suit  between  a
\n\t      landlord\tand  a tenant, and  judging  by\t the
\n\t      plaint  no  question arises out  of  the\tRent
\n\t      Control  Act  or any of its  provisions  which
\n\t      would  have to be determined on the plaint  as
\n\t      it stands…………………
\n\t      (1)   (1951) 53 Bom L. R, 886
\n\t      226<\/span>
\n\t      It  cannot  be suggested\tthat  the  plaintiff
\n\t      should  anticipate any defence that  might  be
\n\t      taken up by the defendant that he is a  tenant
\n\t      or  that\tthe initial jurisdiction  which\t the
\n\t      Court had or which the Court lacked should  be
\n\t      controlled  or  affected\tby  any\t  subsequent
\n\t      contention  that\tmight  be taken\t up  by\t the
\n\t      defendant.   The\tjurisdiction of a  Court  is
\n\t      normally\tand ordinarily to be  determined  at
\n\t      the   time  of  the  inception  of   a   suit.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Therefore when a party puts a plaint on  file,
\n\t      it  is  at  that time that the  Court  has
\n\t      to consider whether the Court had jurisdiction
\n\t      to entertain and try that suit or not.  But it
\n\t      is  argued that although the Court might\thave
\n\t      had  jurisdiction when the suit was filed,  as
\n\t      soon  as the defendant raised  the  contention
\n\t      that he was a tenant the Court ceases to\thave
\n\t      jurisdiction   to\t try  that  suit  and\tthat
\n\t      contention  could only be disposed of  by\t the
\n\t\t\t    Small Causes Court by virtue of the pr
\novisions
\n\t      of s. 28.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Therefore, the question that I have to address
\n\t      myself  to  is  whether  the  question  as  to
\n\t      whether  the  defendant  is  a  tenant  or   a
\n\t      licensee is a question which arises out of the
\n\t      Act  or any of its provisions.   Really,\tthis
\n\t      question\tis not a question that has  anything
\n\t      to  do with the Act or any of its\t provisions.
\n\t      It is a question which is collateral and which
\n\t      has got to be decided before it could be\tsaid
\n\t      that the Act has any application at all.”\n<\/p>\n
We  are in agreement with these observations, and we do\t not
\nthink  that s. 28 in its true scope and —- effect makes  a
\ndeparture from the general principle referred to earlier  by
\nus.  Nor do we think that the right of appeal given by\ts.29
\naffects\t the position in any way.  In respect of a  decision
\ngiven  by  a Court exercising jurisdiction under s.  28,  an
\nappeal is provided for in certain circumstances
\n 227<\/span>
\nunder  s.29.  This does not mean that s-28  has\t the  effect
\ncontended for on behalf of the appellants.
\nAs to the decision of this Court in Babulal Bhuramal (1), we
\ndo  not think that it assists the appellants.\tWe  consider
\nthat  the  Bombay High Court correctly understood  it  in  –
\nJaswantlal  v.\t“Western Company, India”  (2).\t In  Babulal
\nBhuramal’s  case  the facts were these.\t  A  landlord  after
\ngiving\ta notice to quit to his tenant on December 6,  1947,
\nfiled  a  suit\tagainst him in the Court  of  Small  Causes,
\nBombay,\t joining  to  the suit two other  persons  who\twere
\nalleged\t to  be sub-tenants of the tenant.   The  landlord’s
\ncase  was  that\t the  tenancy  of  his\ttenant\twas  validly
\nterminated and he was entitled to evict his tenant; that the
\nalleged\t sub-tenants of the tenant were trespassers who\t had
\nno right to be on the premises.\t The suit succeeded in\t-the
\nSmall  Causes Court, the Court holding that  the  subtenants
\nwere  not lawful sub-tenants, the sub-letting by the  tenant
\nto  them  being contrary to law.  The  Small  Causes  Court,
\ntherefore,  passed  a decree against the plaintiff  and\t the
\nalleged\t sub-tenants.  Thereafter, the tenant  as  plaintiff
\nNo. I and the alleged sub-tenants as plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3
\nfiled  a suit against the landlord in the City\tCivil  Court
\nfor  a declaration that plaintiff No. I was a tenant of\t the
\ndefendant and was entitled to protection under the Rent\t Act
\nand that plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 were lawful sub-tenants  of
\nplaintiffs  No,\t I  and\t were  entitled\t to  possession\t and
\noccupation  of\tthe  premises  as  sub-tenants\tthereof.   A
\nquestion  was raised in the City Civil Court as\t to  whether
\nthe City Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
\nThe  City  Civil  Court held that  it  had  jurisdiction  to
\nentertain  the\tsuit, but dismissed it on  merits.   In\t the
\nappeal\twhich  was filed in the High Court, the\t High  Court
\ndismissed  the appeal holding that the City Civil Court\t had
\nno  jurisdiction  to entertain the suit and  therefore,\t the
\nsuit filed by the plaintiffs in the City
\n(1) [1959]    367,
\n(2) (1939) 61 Bom.  L.R. 1037.\n<\/p>\n
228<\/span><\/p>\n
Civil Court was not maintainable.  It was from this decision
\nof  the High Court that an appeal was filed in\tthe  Supreme
\nCourt  and  the\t question which the  Supreme  Court  had  to
\nconsider was whether the second suit filed by the plaintiffs
\nwas within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court.  It was
\nurged  before  the  Supreme Court that the  suit  was  main-
\ntainable under s. 29-A of the Bombay Rent Act which provided
\nthat  nothing contained in ss. 28 or 29 should be deemed  to
\nbar a party to a suit, proceeding or appeal mentioned  there
\nin  which  a  question of title to premises  arises  and  is
\ndetermined, from suing in a competent Court to establish his
\ntitle to such premises.\t The Supreme Court held that a\tsuit
\nwhich  was competent to establish title under s. 29-A was  a
\nsuit to establish title de hors the Bombay Rent Act and\t not
\na suit which sought to establish title which required to  be
\nestablished  under the Rent Act itself.\t It is obvious\tthat
\nin the suit before the Court of Small Causes, it was open to
\nthe  tenant to claim protection under the Act and by  reason
\nof s. 28 no other Court had jurisdiction to try that  claim;
\ntherefore,  the\t Supreme Court held that s.  28\t barred\t the
\nsecond\tsuit  and s. 29-A did not save it, because  it\tonly
\nsaved  a  suit\tto establish title de  hors  the  Act.\t The
\nobservations  made  in that decision on\t which\tthe  present
\nappellants rely were these
\n\t      “Do the provisions of s. 28 cover %case  where
\n\t      in  a  suit one party alleges that he  is\t the
\n\t      landlord\tand  denies that the  other  is\t his
\n\t      tenant or vice versa and the relief asked\t for
\n\t      in the suit is in the nature of a claim  which
\n\t      arises   out  of\tthe  Act  or  any   of\t the
\n\t      provisions?    The  answer  must\tbe  in\t the
\n\t      affirmative on a reasonable interpretation  of
\n\t      s. 28.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      We  agree\t with  the  High  Court\t that  these
\n\t      observation merely show this that in order  to
\n\t      decide whether a suit comes within the purview
\n\t      of s. 28 what must
\n\t       229<\/span>
\n\t      be  considered is what the suit as  framed  in
\n\t      substance\t is  and  what\tthe  relief  claimed
\n\t      therein  is.   If the suit as framed is  by  a
\n\t      landlord or a tenant and the relief asked\t for
\n\t      is  in the nature of a claim which arises\t out
\n\t      of the Act or any of its provisions, then only
\n\t      and not otherwise will it be covered by S. 28.
\n\t      The High Court has rightly said :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “A  suit which is essentially one between\t the
\n\t      landlord and tenant does not cease to be\tsuch
\n\t      a suit merely because the defendant denies the
\n\t      claim  of the plaintiff.\tIn the same  way,  a
\n\t      suit  which  is not between the  landlord\t and
\n\t      tenant  and in which judging by the plaint  no
\n\t      claim or question arises out of tile Rent\t Act
\n\t      or  any  of its provisions does not  become  a
\n\t      suit covered by the provisions of s. 28 of the
\n\t      Act   as\tsoon  as  the  defendant  raises   a
\n\t      contention that he is a tenant.”\n<\/p>\n
For  the  reasons given above we hold that  the\t City  Civil
\nCourt  had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and  the\tHigh
\nCourt  correctly  came to that conclusion.   Therefore,\t the
\nappeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
\nSARKAR J.–I agree that this appeal fails.
\nThe  City Civil Court, Bombay held that in view of s. 28  of
\nthe  Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging Rates Control Act,\t1947
\nit  had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the Suit  which
\nthe  respondent\t had filed against the\tappellants  in\tthat
\nCourt  and  directed  the  plaint  to  be  returned  to\t the
\nrespondent for being filed in the proper Court indicated  by
\nthat  section,\tnamely) the Court of Small  Causes,  Bombay.
\nThe City Civil Court had tried the question as a preliminary
\nissue in the suit.  There was an appeal to the High Court of
\nBombay from this decision and the High Court took a contrary
\nview holding that
\n230<\/span>
\nthe City Civil Court’s jurisdiction to entertain and try the
\nsuit  had  not\tbeen taken away by s. 28 of  the  Act.\t The
\nmatter is now before this Court in further appeal.
\nThe  suit asked for a declaration that the  appellants\twere
\nnot  entitled  to enter into or remain in  possession  of  a
\ncertain\t  shop\tin  Greater  Bombay  and  for  a   permanent
\ninjunction  restraining\t them from entering  the  shop’\t The
\nallegations  on which the claim to these reliefs  was  based
\nwere  that the appellants had been granted a licence to\t use
\nthe  shop of which the respondent was the tenant  under\t the
\nowner  and  that the appellants were  wrongfully  continuing
\nthere  in spite of the termination of the licence  and\twere
\nthereby\t preventing  the , respondent from carrying  on\t its
\nbusiness  in  the  shop.   The suit,  therefore,  was  by  a
\nlicenser against a licensee for certain reliefs based on the
\ntermination of the licence.\n<\/p>\n
The  defence  of the appellants to this suit  was  that\t the
\nrelationship  between the parties was not that\tof  licenser
\nand  licensee but that the shop had in fact been sub-let  to
\nthe  first  appellant  and that the  agreement\tbetween\t the
\nparties had been given the form of a licence only as a cloak
\nto  protect the respondent from ejectment under the  Act  by
\nits  landlord  on the ground of unlawful  sub-letting.\t The
\nappellants contended that as they were really tenants, their
\nlandlord,  the respondent, was not entitled to\tremove\tthem
\nfrom possession in view of the provisions of the Act.
\nThe question is, how far the suit is affected by  s.   28 of
\nthe Act.  I proceed now to set out the terms of\t  that
\nsection omitting the unnecessary portions.\n<\/p>\n
\t      S. 28 (I)-“Notwithstanding anything  contained
\n\t      in any law
\n\t       231<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   in\tGreater Bombay, the Court  of  Small
\n\t      Causes, Bombay,
\n\t      shall  have jurisdiction to entertain and\t try
\n\t      any suit or proceeding between a landlord\t and
\n\t      a\t tenant relating to the recovery of rent  or
\n\t      possession of any premises to which any of the
\n\t      provisions  of this Part apply and  to  decide
\n\t      any  application\tmade under this Act  and  to
\n\t      deal with any claim or question arising out of
\n\t      this   Act   or\tany   of   its\t  provisions
\n\t      and………………… no other court  shall
\n\t      have jurisdiction to entertain any such  suit,
\n\t      proceeding or application or to deal with such
\n\t      claim or question.”\n<\/p>\n
The  section  deals with three different kinds\tof  matters,
\nnamely,\t (1) suits or proceedings between a landlord  and  a
\ntenant\trelating  to  the recovery of rent  or\trecovery  of
\npossession  of premises, (2) an application made  under\t the
\nAct  and (3) a claim or question arising out of the  Act  or
\nany of its provisions.\tIt provides that no court except the
\nCourt  of  Small  Causes, so far as  properties\t in  Greater
\nBombay\tare concerned, shall have jurisdiction to  entertain
\nand try any suit or proceeding or to decide any\t application
\nor  lastly to deal with any claim or question of any of\t the
\nsaid three kinds mentioned in it.\n<\/p>\n
I  think it is fairly clear that the suit of the  respondent
\ndoes  not  fall\t within\t the  first  two  kinds\t of  matters
\ncontemplated  by  the section mentioned\t in.  the  preceding
\nparagraph  and I did not understand learned counsel for\t the
\nappellants  to contend to the contrary.\t The suit  obviously
\ndoes  not come within the second kind for that\tconsists  of
\napplications  under the Act only and a suit is,\t of  course,
\nnot an “application”.  Turning now to the first kind, it has
\nto be
\n232<\/span>
\nobserved  that it deals with two varieties of suits  between
\nlandlord and tenant, namely, a suit for rent and a suit\t for
\npossession of premises.\t Obviously the respondent’s suit  is
\nnot a suit for rent for no rent is claimed at all.  Nor do I
\nthink  it  possible to say that the suit is  one  between  a
\nlandlord  and  a  tenant  for  recovery\t of  possession\t  of
\npremises.   I suppose whether a suit is of this kind or\t not
\nwill  have to be decided by the frame of the suit, that\t is,
\nby reference to the plaint for the suit is by the  plaintiff
\nand  it must be as lie has decided it shall be.\t  Admittedly
\nthe plaint that the respondent filed does not show that\t the
\nsuit filed by it is between landlord and tenant nor does  it
\ncontain any claim for recovery of possession of premises.
\nThat  brings me to the third class of matters  mentioned  in
\nthe section namely, claims and questions arising out of\t the
\nAct.  The section provides that no court other than a  Court
\nof  Small  Causes shall have jurisdiction to deal  with\t any
\nclaim\tor  question  arising  under  the   Act\t  concerning
\nproperties in Greater Bombay.  It is important to note\there
\nthat this part of the section does not purport to affect any
\ncourt’s jurisdiction to entertain and try a suit but it only
\nprevents  a  court  from  dealing  with\t certain  claims  or
\nquestions.   Therefore, a court may try a suit in so far  as
\nit  does not thereby have to deal with a claim\tor  question
\narising\t out of the Act.  If the other claims and  questions
\narising\t in the suit cannot be tried without dealing with  a
\nclaim or question arising out of the Act, then of course the
\npractical  result would be to prevent the court from  trying
\nthe suit at all.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore,  it\tseems to me that the real question  in\tthis
\ncase is whether the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction  to
\ntry  the respondent’s suit as a whole or in part because  it
\nwould  thereby be dealing with a claim or  question  arising
\nunder the Act.\tDoes the
\n 233<\/span>
\ndecision  of  the suit then require any\t claim\tor  question
\narising\t out of the Act to be dealt with ? If it  does\tnot,
\nthe  City  Civil Court would be absolutely free to  try\t the
\nsuit.\n<\/p>\n
Now, if one considers the plaint only, then of course it  is
\nclear  that  the present suit raises no\t claim\tor  question
\narising\t out of the Act.  But it is said by  the  appellants
\nthat  the  defence  raises such a claim\t or  question.\t The
\nrespondent  answers that the section contemplates claims  or
\nquestions  raised  by  the  plaint  only,  for\tthe  section
\ndetermines the jurisdiction of a court to entertain and\t try
\na  suit\t and this must be done when the suit  is  instituted
\nand, therefore, it is irrelevant to consider what  questions
\nthe defence raises.\n<\/p>\n
I  think it unnecessary to decide the dispute whether it  is
\npermissible  under  the section to look at the\tdefence\t for
\nascertaining  whether  a  claim or question  under  the\t Act
\narises in the suit.  As at present advised, I do not want to
\nbe  understood\tas  assenting  to  the\tproposition  that  a
\nreference to the written statement is not at all permissible
\nfor  deciding  whether a court has  jurisdiction  under\t the
\nsection to deal with claims or questions of a certain  kind.
\nIt is important to remember that the question now is whether
\na  court has jurisdiction to deal with a claim\tor  question
\nand  not  whether a court has jurisdiction  to\tentertain  a
\nsuit.\n<\/p>\n
I  think it unnecessary to decide the dispute because in  my
\nview even the defence in the present case does not raise any
\nclaim  or  question tinder the Act.  The defence  really  is
\nthat  the  appellants  are  not\t licensees.   No  doubt\t the
\nappellants have gone on to say that they are sub-tenants but
\nthey say that only to show why they are not licensees; apart
\nfrom that-it is irrelevant to enquire whether they are\tsub-
\ntenants or not.\t I think the defence is only one of
\n234<\/span>
\na traverse ; it is that the appellants are not licensees  as
\nthe  plaint alleges.  That being so, the only question\tthat
\nthe suit involves is whether the appellants are licensees of
\nthe  shop.   If they are not licensees, then the  suit\tmust
\nfail.\tNo  other question would fall for  decision.   Quite
\nclearly,  a  question whether a defendant is a\tlicensee  or
\nnot, is not a question nor is it a claim arising out of\t the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
Assume\thowever\t that  the defence by  contending  that\t the
\nappellants  are not licensees as they are  subtenants,\talso
\nraises the question whether the appellants are\tsub-tenants.
\nEven so, it does not seem to me that is a question or  claim
\narising\t out  of  the  Act.  The Act  does  not\t create\t any
\ntenancy.   That\t has  to  be created  by  a  contract.\t The
\nquestion whether the appellants are sub-tenants, that is  to
\nsay, tenants of a certain kind, is really a question whether
\na  contract of tenancy was made between the  appellants\t and
\nthe respondent.\t That question is not one arising out of the
\nAct for the Act says nothing as to the creation of a tenancy
\nand  is only concerned with the regulation of the  relations
\nbetween a landlord and tenant in a tenancy the existence  of
\nwhich is otherwise brought about.\n<\/p>\n
The appellants no doubt say that the respondent cannot evict
\nthem  because they are tenants whose right to possession  is
\nprotected by the Act.  They say that, therefore, a  question
\narises whether they are entitled to remain in possession  as
\nsubtenants  by\tvirtue\tof the provisions  of  the  Act\t and
\nwithout the decision of that question the respondent’s\tsuit
\ncannot be decided.  I am entirely unable to see ‘that such a
\nquestion  arises  in the suit or that it cannot\t be  decided
\nwithout a decision of that question.  As soon as it is\theld
\nthat  the  appellants  are licensees, the  suit\t has  to  be
\ndecreed.   When it is so held it has also  been\t necessarily
\nheld
\n 235<\/span>
\nthat  the  appellants are not tenants,\tand,  therefore,  no
\nfurther question as to rights of tenants under the Act falls
\nto  be decided.\t If however it is held that  the  appellants
\nare not licensees but tenants, then on that ground alone the
\nsuit  has to be dismissed for the claim is not based on\t any
\nground\tother than that the appellants are  licensees  whose
\nlicence has expired.  It would not in such an eventuality be
\nnecessary  further  to consider whether the  appellants\t who
\nhave  been found to be tenants, are entitled  to  protection
\nfrom  eviction under the Act for the suit involves no  claim
\nwhatever  for  ejectment  of the  appellants  considered  as
\ntenants.  No question, therefore, can possibly arise in\t the
\nsuit  as  to whether the appellants are entitled  to  be  in
\npossession  as\ttenants by virtue of rights created  by\t the
\nAct.   Looking at the matter from whatever point of  view  I
\ndo,  I\tam wholly unable to think that the decision  of\t any
\nquestion  or claim arising out of the Act is  necessary\t for
\ndeciding the suit.\n<\/p>\n
Learned\t counsel  for  the appellants  referred\t to  Babulal
\nBhuramal   v.  Nandram\tShivram<\/a>\t (1),  in  support  of\t the
\nproposition  that the claim or question arising out  of\t the
\nAct  mentioned\tin  the section may be one  where  only\t the
\ndefence\t gives rise to it.  I find it wholly unnecessary  to
\ndiscuss whether this case supports that proposition for,  as
\nI  have\t said in the case in hand, even the defence  of\t the
\nappellants does not raise any such claim or question.
\nI think it right before concluding to refer to s. 51 of\t the
\nAct  under which reference to suits and proceedings  in\t the
\nAct  are to include reference to proceedings  under  Chapter
\nVII of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882.  Chapter
\nVII  of the Presidency Small Causes Court  Act\tcontemplates
\nproceedings for the recovery of possession of premises\tfrom
\nlicensees  after  the  termination of  licences\t in  certain
\ncases.\tWhether the present case is of that
\n(1)   [1959] S. C. R, 367
\n236<\/span>
\ntype  or not is not known.  If it is of that type,  then  it
\nmay be that the City Civil Court would have no\tjurisdiction
\nto  deal  with it and only the Court of Small  Causes  would
\nhave jurisdiction to do so in view of s. 28.  As however  no
\nargument  was advanced by counsel for the appellants on\t the
\nbasis  of s. 51 nor the facts necessary for its\t application
\nappear\ton the record, I do not feel called upon to  express
\nany  opinion on the matter.  I only draw attention to it  to
\nshow  that  if\tthe question does arise that  has  not\tbeen
\nargued\tnor decided in this case. I think it also  right  to
\npoint out that it may be a    moot   question  whether\t the
\nappellants, having on\t their own statement entered into an
\nagreement to defraud, in a manner of speaking, the  superior
\nlandlord  of  his  rights  arising under  the  Act  from  an
\nunlawful sub-letting, can be permitted to say that the\treal
\ntransaction  between  them  and the respondent\twas  a\tsub-
\ntenancy.\n<\/p>\n
For  these  reasons I concur n i the order’ proposed  by  my
\nbrother Das.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
 237<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Raizada Topandas & Anr vs M\/S. Gorakhram Gokalchand on 22 April, 1963 Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 1348, 1964 SCR (3) 214 Author: S Das Bench: Das, S.K. PETITIONER: RAIZADA TOPANDAS & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: M\/S. GORAKHRAM GOKALCHAND DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/04\/1963 BENCH: DAS, S.K. BENCH: DAS, S.K. SARKAR, A.K. HIDAYATULLAH, M. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-184442","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRaizada Topandas & Anr vs M\/S. Gorakhram Gokalchand on 22 April, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raizada-topandas-anr-vs-ms-gorakhram-gokalchand-on-22-april-1963\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raizada Topandas & Anr vs M\/S. Gorakhram Gokalchand on 22 April, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raizada-topandas-anr-vs-ms-gorakhram-gokalchand-on-22-april-1963\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1963-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-26T06:50:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"37 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raizada-topandas-anr-vs-ms-gorakhram-gokalchand-on-22-april-1963#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raizada-topandas-anr-vs-ms-gorakhram-gokalchand-on-22-april-1963\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raizada Topandas & Anr vs M\\\/S. Gorakhram Gokalchand on 22 April, 1963\",\"datePublished\":\"1963-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-26T06:50:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raizada-topandas-anr-vs-ms-gorakhram-gokalchand-on-22-april-1963\"},\"wordCount\":6361,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raizada-topandas-anr-vs-ms-gorakhram-gokalchand-on-22-april-1963#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raizada-topandas-anr-vs-ms-gorakhram-gokalchand-on-22-april-1963\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raizada-topandas-anr-vs-ms-gorakhram-gokalchand-on-22-april-1963\",\"name\":\"Raizada Topandas & Anr vs M\\\/S. Gorakhram Gokalchand on 22 April, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1963-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-26T06:50:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raizada-topandas-anr-vs-ms-gorakhram-gokalchand-on-22-april-1963#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raizada-topandas-anr-vs-ms-gorakhram-gokalchand-on-22-april-1963\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raizada-topandas-anr-vs-ms-gorakhram-gokalchand-on-22-april-1963#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raizada Topandas & Anr vs M\\\/S. Gorakhram Gokalchand on 22 April, 1963\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Raizada Topandas & Anr vs M\/S. Gorakhram Gokalchand on 22 April, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raizada-topandas-anr-vs-ms-gorakhram-gokalchand-on-22-april-1963","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raizada Topandas & Anr vs M\/S. Gorakhram Gokalchand on 22 April, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raizada-topandas-anr-vs-ms-gorakhram-gokalchand-on-22-april-1963","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1963-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-26T06:50:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"37 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raizada-topandas-anr-vs-ms-gorakhram-gokalchand-on-22-april-1963#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raizada-topandas-anr-vs-ms-gorakhram-gokalchand-on-22-april-1963"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raizada Topandas & Anr vs M\/S. Gorakhram Gokalchand on 22 April, 1963","datePublished":"1963-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-26T06:50:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raizada-topandas-anr-vs-ms-gorakhram-gokalchand-on-22-april-1963"},"wordCount":6361,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raizada-topandas-anr-vs-ms-gorakhram-gokalchand-on-22-april-1963#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raizada-topandas-anr-vs-ms-gorakhram-gokalchand-on-22-april-1963","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raizada-topandas-anr-vs-ms-gorakhram-gokalchand-on-22-april-1963","name":"Raizada Topandas & Anr vs M\/S. Gorakhram Gokalchand on 22 April, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1963-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-26T06:50:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raizada-topandas-anr-vs-ms-gorakhram-gokalchand-on-22-april-1963#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raizada-topandas-anr-vs-ms-gorakhram-gokalchand-on-22-april-1963"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raizada-topandas-anr-vs-ms-gorakhram-gokalchand-on-22-april-1963#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raizada Topandas & Anr vs M\/S. Gorakhram Gokalchand on 22 April, 1963"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184442","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=184442"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184442\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=184442"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=184442"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=184442"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}