MADHAVPRASAD KALKAPRASAD Vs. INDIRABAI CHANDAVARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff under Order 21, Rule 103, and the suit came to be filed under the following circumstances.

(2.) The plaintiff's case was that ho was a subtenant of the defendant and the defendant filed a suit in the Small Cause Court for ejecting one Anna Adgauda Patil alleging that Patil was his sub-tenant. Patil admitted the fact and agreed to vacate the premises. Thereupon an order was passed by the Small Cause Court on 14-5-1945, ordering Patil to vacate the premises. The defendant obtained a warrant of possession and the plaintiff offered obstruction. The defendant took out an obstructionist notice and the plaintiff was ordered to hand over possession to the defendant. The plaintiff thereupon filed the present suit. The plaintiff in the suit prayed for a declaration that he was the tenant of the defendant and as such tenant entitled to remain in possession of the premises. He also sought for a declaration that the defendant was not entitled to execute the order of the Small Cause Court. After the suit was filed and before the plaintiff could got a stay of execution of the order, the defendant obtained possession of the premises, and therefore the plaintiff asked for an amendment of the plaint and prayed that the possession which had been taken away from him should be restored to him.

(3.) The learned Judge tried the preliminary issue as to whether this Court had jurisdiction to try the suit, and the learned Judge came to the conclusion that this Court had no jurisdiction and that the suit had to be transferred to the Small Cause Court under the provisions of Section 50, Rent Control Act, and it is from that finding that this appeal is preferred.