Suleman v. Tangwood Ltd. Civ. Case 51-D-70; 9/11/70; Saidi J.

 

Suleman  v. Tangwood Ltd.  Civ. Case 51-D-70; 9/11/70; Saidi J.

            It was alleged that the High Court had no jurisdiction in matters arising out of the Rent Restriction Act because section 11(A) (1) of the Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act No.2 of 1966 gives exclusive jurisdiction over the court of the Resident Magistrate in “all claims, proceedings or other matters of a civil nature arising out of the Act” even in cases in which the pecuniary jurisdiction was above that of the /resident Magistrate. According to section 11(A) (2) of the Act where a suit is filed in the High Court instead of the Resident Magistrate’s Court, the High Court may if it thinks fit to do so, entertain the claim and exercise the same powers, though the costs will be on the scale applicable to the lower court. (Kotak Ltd. v. Hussein M. Jaffer and another Civ. Case 64 of 1968). It was also submitted that as the suit involved two other claims, one against guarantors for the payment of rent and the other for trespass, it could not be properly instituted before the court of the Resident Magistrate.

            Held:   (1) “Having carefully reviewed the pleadings and submissions of the learned counsel I find no good reason for rejection of the suit or an order for its transfer to the court of the Resident Magistrate. I direct that the suit should be tried before this court and that the costs relating to the claim for arrears of rent will be on the scale applicable to the court of the Resident Magistrate.”