Source: https://www.lawweb.in/2017/09/whether-injunction-suit-against.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:21:48+00:00

Document:
Law Web: Whether injunction suit against licensor is maintainable before small cause court Mumbai?
Whether injunction suit against licensor is maintainable before small cause court Mumbai?
It was submitted by learned Counsel for the respondents that in these two cases plaintiffs had prayed for declaration of their status. While in the present cases on such declaration is sought. In our view this will make no difference. Even in the present cases before getting interim injunction or perpetual injunction, plaintiff will have to show that he is a licensee on monetary consideration as claimed by him and the defendant is licensor and that he has threatened to illegally disturb his possession of the suit premises. It is the substance of the relief which matters and not its form.
18. In view of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, it must be held that the impugned judgments under appeal were rightly decided by the High Court and call for no interference in these appeals.
19. Before parting with these cases, we may mention that the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ambalal v. Narmada MANU/GJ/0104/1962 : (1963)4GLR90 has taken the view that a suit where plaintiff claims that he is entitled to possession and seeks a permanent injunction restraining the respondent-landlord for recovering possession, would fall under Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act. The very same view was taken by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ramkishore v. Vijaybahadursingh MANU/MH/0017/1964 : AIR1964Bom85 . A full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Dattatreya Krishna v. Jairam Ganesh MANU/MH/0113/1965 : AIR1965Bom177 which a held that suits for injunction against defendant-landlords restraining them from forcibly evicting the plaintiff-tenants from possession of the suit premises would lie within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court, Bombay as such suits will be suits relating to recovery of possession of premises. In our view the aforesaid decisions lay down correct law on the point. Swant, J. in the impugned judgment under appeal in Civil Appeal No. 4913 of 1989 was inclined to take a contrary view on the ground that the plaintiff had not prayed for a declaration about his licence and all that he was claiming was to protect his possession against threats of unlawful eviction and the Court had not to decide the status of the plaintiff. With respect, on the clear recitals and prayers in the plaint such a view is not sustainable. It is easy to visualise that before getting injunction whether temporary or permanent the plaintiff has to establish a legal right for the said relief, as seen earlier. Once the plaintiff contends that he is a licensee of the suit premises and the defendant is a licensor and on that basis he wants the assistance of the Court to protect his possession, it would be a suit between a licensee and licensor relating to the recovery of possession.
S. Mohan and S.B. Majmudar, JJ.
Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff claiming the right to possess the suit premises as a licensee, against defendant alleged licensor, who is said to be threatening to disturb the possession of the plaintiff licensee, without following due procedure of law, is cognizable by the court of small causes Bombay as per Section 41(1) of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Small Causes Courts Act") 1882 or whether it is cognizable by the City Civil Court, Bombay, constituted under the Bombay City Civil Act.
2. The High Court by the impugned judgment in these appeals has taken the view that such a suit is not maintainable before the City Civil Court and should be filed in the Small Causes Court, Bombay, under Section 41(1) of the Small Causes Courts Act. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended before us that the said view is not correct. Learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand has supported the same view.
3. Before we consider the aforesaid question, a few relevant facts leading to both these appeal deserve to be noted at the outset.
4. The appellant-plaintiffs filed suit No. 1290 of 1984 in the Bombay City Civil Court against the respondent-defendant for permanent injunction on the ground that the appellants are in possession of the suit shop. That the respondent-defendant is tenant of the suit premises being Shop No. 4, Meghji Vallabhdas Trust Building, Bhavanishankar Road, Dadar, Bombay. That the defendant took the same premises in December, 1974 on rent and put the appellants into possession thereof under an irrevocable licence/tenancy agreement. It was agreed that Plaintiff No. 1 had to pay licence fee to the defendant or to the landlord. The plaintiff further averred that due to some difference of opinion between the parties, the defendant started threatening the appellants that he would physically throw them out of the suit premises and hence the suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-licensor from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff-licensees of the suit premises.
5. We are not concerned with the defence of the respondent on merits for resolving the present controversy about the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court to entertain such a suit. Jurisdiction of the Court has to be decided at this stage on the averments in the plaint on demurrer, taking them to be true.
6. The appellants moved an application for temporary injunction pending the suit. While opposing the said application, the respondent contended that the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and it was only the Small Causes Court, Bombay, which could entertain such a suit. This contention was examined by the City Civil Court as a preliminary issue. After hearing both the sides, learned Judge of the City Civil Court came to the conclusion that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain such a suit for injunction and thereafter directed that the injunction application should be heard on merits.
7. The said order of City Civil Court was challenged by the respondent by filing Civil Revision Application No. 212 of 1985 in the High Court. The learned Chief Justice (Madhava Reddy, CJ) who heard the revision in the first instance thought it fit to refer the matter to a Division Bench, looking to the importance of the question involved. The revision application thereafter was placed before a Division Bench consisting of P.B. Swant, J. (as he then was) and G.H. Guttal, J. Sawant, J. took the view that the City Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain such a suit, but Guttal, J. took a contrary view and held that such a suit could He only under Section 41(1) of the Small Courts Act before the Small Causes Court, Bombay. In view of the difference of opinion between the two learned Judges constituting the Division Bench, the matter was referred to a third learned Judge Pendse, J. Pendse, J. after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He agreed with the view taken by Guttal, J. Thereafter the matter was placed before the Division Bench for final orders and in the light of the decision reached by Guttal, J. and Pendse, J., the revision application was allowed and it was held that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On an application by the appellants for certificate under Article 133 (11, the Division Bench granted the certificate as prayed for and that is how this civil appeal has been filed in this Court and has reached hearing before us.
8. The appellant-plaintiff filed Suit No. 7508 of 1984 in the City Civil Court at Bombay against the respondents for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-defendants, their servants and agents, from dispossessing the appellant-plaintiff from the suit premises being 505-A, Neel Kanth, 98, Marine Drive, Bombay, save and except by due process of law, A further injunction was also sought, restraining the respondents from in any manner obstructing or interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the aforesaid suit premises save and except by due process of law. The case of the plaintiff was that it was a firm which started its business as shroffs & financiers hi the suit premises. That premises which originally belonging to S. Mathuradas were purchased by Respondents Nos. 1 & 2 who are also dealing as the Shroffs and financiers. On behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 & 2, Respondent No. 3 used to accept monthly compensation which used to be paid by cheque. That the plaintiff had been paying monthly compensation to Respondent No. 3 v/ho had been accepting the same till 1982. The case of the plaintiff was that the premises were given to the plaintiff-firm by way of licence by Defendant No. 3 and as the plaintiff apprehended that the defendants were likely to oust the plaintiff from the suit premises without following due process of law, he filed the aforesaid suit for the above stated reliefs.
9. In the said suit, by notice of motion the appellant-plaintiff prayed for interim relief against the respondents. That notice of motion was dismissed by the Trial Court on merits after hearing the contesting parties. The appellant-plaintiff thereafter filed an appeal from Order No. 598 of 1986 before the Bombay High Court. In that appeal, the learned Single Judge S.M. Daud, J., took the view that City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. For reaching that conclusion the learned Judge placed reliance on the decision of the High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 212 of 1985 which is the subject-matter of companion appeal before us. As noted earlier, the appellant obtained leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution and has filed this appeal.
10. As both the appeals raised common question for consideration, learned Counsel for the contesting parties were heard in common on this question and accordingly we are disposing of these appeals by this judgment.
41(1). Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force but subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), the Court of Small Causes shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try all suits and proceedings between a licensor and licensee, or a landlord and tenant, relating to the recovery of possession of any immovable property situated in Greater Bombay, or relating to the recovery of the license fee or charges of rent thereof, irrespective of the value of the subject matter of such suits or proceedings.
A mere look at the aforesaid provision makes it clear that because of the non-obstante clause contained in the section, even if a suit may otherwise lie before any other court, if such a suit falls within the sweep of Section 41(1) it can be entertained only by the Court of Small Causes. In the present proceedings we are not concerned with the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 41(1) and hence we do not refer to them. For applicability of Section 41(1) of the Small Causes Courts Act, the following conditions must be satisfied before taking view that jurisdiction of regular competent civil court like City Civil Court is ousted.
12. In the present case, we are not concerned with the 2nd and 4th conditions, as the only contention of the appellants is that the present suits do not satisfy conditions Nos. 1 and 3 for attracting Section 41(1). The respondents claim to the contrary. It is obvious that if the present suits satisfy conditions Nos. 1 and 3 they would clearly attract the applicability of Section 41(1) of the Act and such suits would be outside the purview of regular civil court like the City Civil Court. Therefore, the enquiry which becomes relevant at this stage is to find out from the averments in the plaints whether these are suits between a licensor and a licensee and Whether they relate to the recovery of possession of immovable properly situated in Greater Bombay.
to stand in some relation, to have bearing or concern, to pertain, refer, to bring into association with or connection with.
Expressions such as "arising out of or "in respect of or "in connection with" or "in relation to" or "in consequence of or "concerning" or "relating to" the contract are of the widest amplitude and content and include even questions as to the existence, validity and effect (scope) of the arbitration agreement.
The words "arising out of have been used in the sense that it comprises purchase of shares and lands from income arising out of the Kanpur undertaking. We are of the opinion that the words "pertaining to" and "in relation to" have the same wide meaning and have been used interchangeably for among other reasons, which may include avoidance of repetition of the same phrase in the same clause or sentence, a method followed in good drafting. The word "pertain" is synonymous with the word "relate" , see Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 17, Page 693.
The expression "in relation to" (so also "pertaining to"), is a very broad expression which presupposes another subject matter. These are words of comprehensiveness which might have both a direct significance as well as an indirect significance depending on the context, see State Wakf Board v. Abdul Azeez, following and approving Nitai Charan Bagchi v. Suresh Chandra Paul, Shyam Lal v. M. Shyamlal and 76 C J S 621. Assuming that the investments in shares and in lands do not form part of the undertakings but are different subject matters, even then these would be brought within the purview of the vesting by reason of the above expressions. In this connection reference may be made to 76 Corpus Juris Secundum at pages 620 and 621 where it is stated that the terms "relate" is also defined as meaning to bring into association or connection with. It has been clearly mentioned that "relating to" has been held to be equivalent to or synonymous with as to "concerning with" and "pertaining to". The expression "pertaining to" is an expression of expansion and not of contraction.
It is, therefore, obvious that the phrase 'relating; to recovery of possession' as found in Section 41(1) of the Small Causes Court Act is comprehensive in nature and takes in its sweep all types of suits and proceedings which are concerned with the recovery of possession of suit property from the licensee and, therefore, suits for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from effecting forcible recovery of such possession from the licensee plaintiff would squarely be covered by the wide sweep of the said phrase. Consequently in the light of the averments in the plaints under consideration and the prayers sought for therein, on the clear language of Section 41(1), the conclusion is inevitable that these suits could lie within the exclusive jurisdiction of Small Causes Court, Bombay and the City Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain such suits.
shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try suit or proceeding between a landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises to which any of the provisions of this Part apply.
The present suit filed in the City Civil Report raised in substance a claim to the effect that the plaintiffs were the tenants of the premises within the meaning of the Act. Such a claim was one which arose out of the Act or any of its provisions. The suit related to possession of the premises and the right of the landlord to evict any of the plaintiffs was denied on the ground that the first plaintiff was a tenant within the meaning of the Act and the premises had been lawfully sublet by him to the second and third plaintiffs. The City Civil Court was thus called upon to decide whether the first plaintiff was a tenant of the premises within the meaning of the Act and whether he had lawfully sublet the same to the second and third plaintiffs. The City Civil Court, therefore, had to determine whether the plaintiffs had established their claim to be in possession of the premises in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
15. The situation in the present case is almost parallel. The plaintiffs-licencees claim their light as licensees to protect possession of the suit premises from licensors by invoking the help of the Court. Such suits obviously would have to be styled as suits relating to recovery of possession, on a party of reasoning which appealed to the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Babulal's case (supra).
The relationship between the parties being that of licenser-landlord and licensee-tenant and the dispute between them relating to the possession of the licensed-demised premises, there is no help from the conclusion that the Court of Small Causes alone has the jurisdiction and the Arbitrator has none to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties.
17. It was submitted by learned Counsel for the respondents that in these two cases plaintiffs had prayed for declaration of their status. While in the present cases on such declaration is sought. In our view this will make no difference. Even in the present cases before getting interim injunction or perpetual injunction, plaintiff will have to show that he is a licensee on monetary consideration as claimed by him and the defendant is licensor and that he has threatened to illegally disturb his possession of the suit premises. It is the substance of the relief which matters and not its form.
20. Analogy drawn by Sawant, J. from cases under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 on the clear averments in the plaints in present cases is also not apposite. It is trite to say that Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act given a summary remedy to the plaintiff to seek restoration of possession from the defendant within six months of illegal recovery of possession by the defendant, without referring to the title of the plaintiff and defendant. It is purely a possessory suit wherein status of the party is irrelevant. In such type of suits the plaintiff is not required to prove his title or a superior right to possession as compared to the defendant and has only to show that he was in possession of the suit immovable property and he was illegally dispossessed within a period of six months prior to the date of the suit. Once the plaintiff proves this case, he becomes entitled to succeed and can get status quo ante and restoration of possession of the suit premises through the assistance of the Court. In given cases, even injunction suits purely bused on previous peaceful possession and subsequent threatened dispossession may stand on an entirely different footing and might not attract the sweep of Section 41(1) of the Small Causes Courts or for that matter Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act. But the present suits are not of that type. They are suits clearly based on the allegation that the plaintiffs are licensees on monetary considerations and they apprehend to be dispossessed, not in accordance with law, at the hands of defendant-licensors. Such suits as we have discussed earlier, clearly attract the applicability of Section 41 of the Small Causes Courts Act as both the conditions for its applicability, namely, that they are suits between licensees and licensors and they relate to recovery of possession of immovable properties situated in Greater Bombay are complied with. Consequently the conclusion is inevitable that the aforesaid suits as filed by the appellants were not cognizable by the City Civil Court, Bombay and they could be entertained only by the Small Causes Court, Bombay, and fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the latter court.
21. As a result of this discussion, both these appeals fail. The City Civil Court is directed to return the plaints in both these cases to the respective appellants for being presented to proper Court of Small Causes, Bombay, if so advised, Appeals are accordingly dismissed subject to the aforesaid direction to the City Civil Court, Bombay. No order as to costs in both these appeals.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Application No. 212
 Application No. 212
 v. 
 v. 
 v.