VEERAMMA B BABU Vs. JANARDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from a judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay, on 28th January, 1977 in S.C. Suit No. 2930 of 1976 rejecting the plaint on the ground that City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.

(2.) The facts are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed the suit against the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) in the City Civil Court, Bombay, that she was in possession of a hut bearing No. 283 (ACW) situate at Geeta Nagar, Holiday Camp, Colaba, Bombay-5, which was constructed by her on the land belonging to Government of Maharashtra. Somewhere in the last week of December 1975, the defendant approached her and said that he was in dire need of temporary accommodation and he and the members of his family be allowed to stay with her. The plaintiff acceded to his request and allowed him, his wife and a child to stay along with her. However, on 24th February, 1976 the defendant dispossessed her of the said hutment otherwise than by the course of law by removing her articles and by putting up his own lock. She, therefore, took proceeding under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which came to be rejected summarily on the ground that she was in joint possession of the hut along with the defendant. Thereafter she filed the suit in the City Civil Court, Bombay, for a relief that the defendant be directed to restore the possession of the above-mentioned premises to her. When the suit was taken up for hearing a contention was raised before the learned trial Judge, on behalf of the defendant, that if the land on which the structure was situate, was vacant land within the meaning of the Maharashtra Vacant Lands (Prohibition of Unauthorised Occupation and Summary Eviction) Act, 1975, would the City Civil Court have jurisdiction to entertain the suit ? It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that it was not a suit challenging an order of eviction made by the Competent Authority but was a suit between two private individuals regarding possession of premises and the question of title was not involved. The learned trial Judge framed a preliminary issue as under :---

(3.) Mr. Shetty, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, submitted that after the impugned judgment and order was passed by the learned trial Judge on 28th January, 1977, the Supreme Court decided the point involved in this appeal in case of (Chandu Naik and others v. Sitaram B. Naik and another) A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 333 and has held that when the dispute is between two private parties in respect of possession of premises, the provisions of section 8 of the Act are not attracted and the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit of the kind with which we are dealing. Mr. Kapadia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, conceded this position in law in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court.