SANYAM REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SHYAMJI BHAGIRATHI YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant (original defendant no.1) challenged validity and legality of the judgment and order dated 28.8.2012 passed by Learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, whereby the learned City Civil Judge had framed issue about proof of tenancy in respect of suit premises as also as to who inherited the tenancy rights amongst the heirs of original tenant Mathuraprasad Mittal Yadav. The court held that the instrument (agreement dated 26.10.2005) executed between defendant nos.1 and 2 is not binding upon the plaintiff.

(2.) The appellant while challenging the impugned judgment and order made a grievance that learned City Civil Judge did not take into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the real cause of action before the court, which raised question relating to tenancy of the suit premises, as also, as to status of legal heir as tenant under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. It does appear that the trial court had framed an issue regarding jurisdiction of City Civil Court to entertain and try the suit. But it was answered in the affirmative and the learned Judge proceeded to deal with the merits of the averments in the plaint.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when an issue relating to jurisdiction of the court is raised, learned Judge ought to have addressed himself to the averments made in the plaint and the question arising out of the pleading in the plaint. According to learned counsel for the appellant, City Civil Court, Mumbai, had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, as the question arising from the pleadings or averments made in the plaint regarding tenancy of the suit premises or relating to the question as to who is tenant after death of original tenant were questions cognizable and triable exclusively by Small Cause Court, Mumbai, and not by City Civil Court.