LAXMIKANT JAIKISANJI LADDHA Vs. RANGNATH SHRIRANJGJI CHANDAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Gilda, learned senior counsel for the applicant and Mr. Chandurkar, learned counsel for the non-applicant.

(2.) The revision challenges the order dtd. 9/12/2021 passed below Exh.27 on the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, on the ground that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Sec. 8(4) of the MRC Act, considering the language of the same and therefore was one which was liable to be rejected.

(3.) Mr Gilda, learned senior counsel states that since the plaint has been instituted under Sec. 8(4) of the MRC Act, the basic requirement as is spelt out from the requirement of Sec. 8(4) of the Act is that a plea for a standard rent can be raised only in a suit for recovery of rent. Thus the existence of a suit for recovery of rent would be a sine qua non for entertaining a plea for fixation of standard rent, in absence of which the suit itself would not be maintainable under Sec. 8(4) of the Act, which would indicate the absence of a right to sue and therefore, resulting in the absence of cause of action as contemplated under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the CPC and therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected. Reliance is placed upon Colonel Shrawan Kumar Jaipuriyar vrs. Krishna Nandan Singh and anr, (2020) 16 SCC 594.