SUTAR PUKRAJ SOMTIJI Vs. YELLUBAI MALLAPPA WAGLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocate for the appellant and for the respondent No. 2.

(2.) THE appellant challenges the order dated 13-3-2002 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai answering the preliminary issue regarding the lack of jurisdiction to the City Civil Court to entertain the suit, in affirmative and, therefore, directing return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.

(3.) UPON hearing the learned Advocates and perusal of the record, it is seen that the appellant has filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground that the original tenant in relation to the suit premises had surrendered his tenancy in relation to the suit premises on 20th July, 1998 and on the very day the premises were leased out to the appellant by the landlord-respondent No. 2 herein; however, the suit premises were occupied by the respondent No. 1 from 22nd September, 2000 onwards and when the appellant enquired about the same with the respondents and particularly with the respondent No. 2 the landlord, it was informed to the appellant that respondent No. 1 has rightly obtained the possession of the suit premises and if the appellant wants to take it back, then he should make arrangement for premium of Rs. 7 lacs within a weeks time failing which the transaction with the third party would be completed. The suit is apparently filed for recovery of possession of the suit premises based on claim of tenancy. The trial Court, therefore, referring to section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 held that the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such suit and ordered the return of the plaint by the impugned order.