Exclusive rent-court jurisdiction and limits on equitable relief prevent possession orders contrary to statute

Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act confers exclusive jurisdiction only where the dispute is between landlord and tenant or otherwise falls within the statute; where the plaintiffs themselves deny the defendant's tenancy and sue outside that relationship, the Small Causes Court lacks jurisdiction. Article 142 cannot be used to override a statutory bar or to grant possession contrary to the governing law, even on grounds of hardship or delay. The appeals therefore failed, and the parties were left to pursue any remedy before the competent forum, with limitation exclusion indicated for any fresh proceeding.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Small Causes Court, Bombay had jurisdiction to entertain the suit when the plaintiffs denied that the respondent was a tenant under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947. (ii) Whether relief could be granted under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to direct delivery of vacant possession despite the statutory bar.

Issue (i): Whether the Small Causes Court, Bombay had jurisdiction to entertain the suit when the plaintiffs denied that the respondent was a tenant under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947.

Analysis: Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the designated court only in suits or proceedings between a landlord and a tenant and in matters arising under the Act. The jurisdictional foundation depends upon the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship or a dispute falling within the statutory framework. Where the plaintiffs themselves assert that the respondent is not a tenant and seek eviction outside that relationship, the suit does not satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisite under the special statute.

Conclusion: The Small Causes Court, Bombay had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Issue (ii): Whether relief could be granted under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to direct delivery of vacant possession despite the statutory bar.

Analysis: Article 142 is an extraordinary equitable power, but it cannot be exercised to supplant substantive statutory law or to grant relief inconsistent with express legal provisions. Sympathy, delay, or hardship cannot justify an contrary to the governing statute where no legal right is established. The request for a direction to hand over possession therefore could not override the jurisdictional defect and the statutory framework.

Conclusion: Relief under Article 142 was declined.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, and the Court left the parties to pursue any remedy before the competent forum in accordance with law, including the benefit of limitation exclusion if a fresh proceeding is instituted.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere denial of tenancy does not by itself oust statutory jurisdiction, but where the suit is not maintainable within the exclusive forum created by the special rent law, the designated court cannot entertain it, and Article 142 cannot be used to grant relief contrary to the statute.

---