TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1968 (2) TMI 72
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 2, who claimed to be a sub-tenant in respect of the disputed premises, the tenant-defendant being defendant No. 1. The tenant was M/s. Dwariks Sweets (India) Ltd. which had gone into liquidation and was represented in the suit by the official receiver of this court, who was appointed by this court liquidator for the purpose of the above liquidation. The suit has been dismissed by the learned trial judge upon the view that the city civil court, in which the suit was instituted, had no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. On the merits, however, the learned trial judge has recorded some findings prima facie in favour of the plaintiffs, but those findings, except so far as they concern issues Nos. 1 and 2 of the suit, appear to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nant, had a valid sub-tenancy to disentitle the plaintiffs to a decree in their suit in case the other points were found in their favour. The said issue obviously was left undetermined, having regard to the findings of the court below that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit and that accordingly the plaint was liable to be returned. In the above circumstances, the only point, which it will be necessary for us to decide in this appeal, would be the question of jurisdiction of the learned trial judge to entertain and try the present suit. In holding against the plaintiffs on the above question, the learned trial judge relied upon the fact that the suit was brought against the tenant (which was a company in liquidation), represented b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned trial judge has not correctly read the said item. It is true that, in item No. 16, reference is made to a suit triable by this court under any special law other than the letters patent. Granting that the Companies Act, 1956, would be a special law for the purpose and granting also that the suit, by virtue of section 446(2) of the said Act, would be triable by this court, the jurisdiction conferred under the said section on this court being as held by the learned trial judge himself, a concurrent jurisdiction, item No. 16 of the First Schedule should not be read to have the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of the city civil court which has otherwise primary jurisdiction in this matter. In the first place, the said item contemplate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r as aforesaid, remained unaffected. Whatever then might be the position under the above item in regard to suits which were cognisable by this court at the time of enactment of the City Civil Courts Act, the instant suit would have been entertainable by the city civil court in spite of the said item and the argument to the contrary should be overruled. Even apart from what we have said above, the jurisdiction of the city civil court to entertain and try the present suit would be amply established and affirmed by or under the City Civil Courts Act, 1953, and the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1957 (West Bengal Act XXVII of 1957), which came into force on 13th January, 1957. Whatever jurisdiction this court may have obtained....