Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether premises leased from a local authority and improved by the lessee fall outside the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, so that the City Civil Court retains jurisdiction despite section 28.
Analysis: Section 4(1) of the Act exempts premises belonging to the Government or a local authority. The exemption is attached to the premises itself and is not confined only to the immediate landlord-tenant relationship with the authority. The lease covenants showed that the lessor retained the dominant ownership and control over the land and building, while the lessee had only a right of enjoyment under the lease. The fact that the lessee had constructed the building at his own cost did not displace the legal ownership of the lessor, and the premises continued to belong to the local authority for purposes of the exemption. Once the Act did not apply, the jurisdictional bar in section 28 was inapplicable.
Conclusion: The Act did not apply to the demised premises, the City Civil Court had jurisdiction, and the appellant was entitled to succeed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where premises legally belong to a local authority, the exemption in section 4(1) of the rent control statute attaches to the premises and excludes the Act's application, thereby leaving ordinary civil court jurisdiction intact.