BABULAL BHURAMAL AND ANOTHER versus NANDRAM SHIVRAM AND OTHERS

BABULAL BHURAMAL AND ANOTHER versus NANDRAM SHIVRAM AND OTHERS

The City Civil Court could not entertain the suit because Section 28 of the Act vests exclusive jurisdiction in specified courts for claims arising out of the Act or its provisions, including disputes over tenancy or subtenancy status; Section 29A does not override this bar for claims arising solely under the Act.

Parties
Appellants: Babulal Bhuramal and Another; Respondents: Nandram Shivram and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
31 March 1958
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Bombay High Court Judgment and Decree Dated November 7, 1955 in Appeal No. 629 of 1955, Arising Out of Judgment and Decree Dated August 9, 1955 of the City Civil Court, Bombay in Suit No. 2178 of 1954
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Bar to Civil Courts Under Section 28, Scope of Section 29 a
Landlord Tenant Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Under Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 Bar to Civil Courts Under Section 28 Scope of Section 29 a

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Babulal Bhuramal and Another

Appellants

Nandram Shivram and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Bombay High Court Judgment and Decree Dated November 7, 1955 in Appeal No. 629 of 1955, Arising Out of Judgment and Decree Dated August 9, 1955 of the City Civil Court, Bombay in Suit No. 2178 of 1954

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the City Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit to establish status as tenants and sub-tenants for protection from eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947

Ratio Decidendi

The City Civil Court could not entertain the suit because Section 28 of the Act vests exclusive jurisdiction in specified courts for claims arising out of the Act or its provisions, including disputes over tenancy or subtenancy status; Section 29A does not override this bar for claims arising solely under the Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • No further stay granted to appellants; execution of eviction decree permitted as previously stayed due to undertakings during appeal process