VIRAF G ICHHAPORIA Vs. MANCHERJI JAMSHEDJI CAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents, as trustees of M.F. Cama Ahornan Institute and M.M. Cama Education Fund, filed L.E. Suit No.96/143 of 2008 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay for eviction of the defendant and possession of the suit premises and also for payment of mesne profits and/or compensation for unauthorised occupation by the defendant. In that suit, the plaintiffs filed application Exhibit 12 seeking direction to the defendant to deposit the entire arrears of compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month from October 2008 till the date of filing of the application and also to continue to deposit the same in future. The defendant, who is the present revision applicant, contested the application and contended that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction and possession as in view of the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter for short, "the Rent Act"), the plaintiffs could have filed application before the competent authority and by virtue of Section 47 of the Rent Act, the jurisdiction of Civil Court has been ousted.

(2.) To appreciate the controversy, it will be useful to state the pleadings of the parties in brief. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant, who is the revision applicant before this Court, was in service of the Trust. He was allotted the suit premises as a gratuitous/service licensee without payment of rent or charges. As the services of the defendant were no more required, the plaintiffs terminated the services of the defendant on 18.11.2004 with the immediate effect and requested him to vacate the premises and hand over the possession to the plaintiffs. Due to his failure to vacate the premises, firstly, the plaintiff had field Suit No.2974/2005 before the High Court. However, it was held that the High Court did not have jurisdiction and that the jurisdiction to entertain the suit was with the Small Cause Court. In the result, the plaint was returned to the plaintiffs for presentation before the appropriate Court. During the pendency of that suit, the High Court had appointed the Court Receiver of the premises and the defendant was appointed as an agent of the Court Receiver and he was directed to pay amount of Rs.5,000/- per month as royalty for occupation of the premises. That order was confirmed in Appeal (L) No.180/2006 by order dated 19.7.2007 by the Division Bench of the High Court. Later on, when the High Court returned the plaint for presentation before the appropriate Court, the High Court also directed that the appointment of the Court Receiver as per the order dated 27.10.2005 shall continue for some time to enable the plaintiffs to move the concerned Court. In view of these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit before the Small Cause Court for eviction and possession and sought the direction from the Small Cause Court to the defendant to deposit royalty amount of Rs.5,000/- per month. The defendant denied that he was provided the premises as service accommodation. According to him, he was inducted as a tenant independently of his service with the plaintiffs. According to him, in view of the plea taken by the plaintiffs, there was a relationship of the licensor and licensee and, therefore, the proceedings could be filed only before the competent authority under Chapter VIII of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and not before the Small Cause Court under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. After hearing the parties, the trial Court rejected the contention of the defendant and held that he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and he also directed the defendant to deposit the arrears of compensation as claimed and also to continue to pay amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month till the final disposal of the suit. That order is challenged by the defendant in the present Revision Application.

(3.) Mr. Dinkar Rao, learned Counsel for the revision applicant pressed the Revision Application only on the point of jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court under Sec. 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Court Act. According to him, the legislature has specially provided for summary disposal of certain applications by the competent authority, including the application by the landlord/licensor for recovery of possession from the licensee. The learned Counsel contended that Sec.47 appearing in Chapter VIII of the Rent Act specifically excludes the jurisdiction of Civil Court in respect of any matter which the competent authority or the State Government or an officer authorised by it is empowered to decide. The learned Counsel contended that in view of this, the jurisdiction of th Small Cause Court under Sec. 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Court is ousted and, therefore, the suit would not be tenable before the Small Cause Court and if the plaintiffs claim to be the licensors, their remedy is in the form of application before the competent authority under Chapter VIII of the Rent Act.