MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RURAL MULTIPURPOSE DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED Vs. DADAJEE DHAKJEE PVT. LD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicants have filed this Revision Application challenging the order dtd. 14/2/2024 passed by Appellate Bench Small Causes Court in P Appeal No.294 of 2022. The Appellate Bench has allowed the Appeal and has set aside order dtd. 12/10/2022 passed by the Small Causes Court on application at Exhibit-31, by which the Small Causes Court had rejected the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (Code). The Appellate Bench has restored the suit bearing TE & R Suit No.78/102 of 2010.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that Plaintiff landlord has instituted TE & R Suit No.78/102 of 2010 against the Maharashtra State Cooperative Rural Multipurpose Development Bank Limited and Liquidator appointed on the Bank (Defendant) seeking recovery of possession of suit premises totally admeasuring 15,000 square feet on ground, mezzanine and first floor of Building 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Mumbai - 400 007. The suit is filed under provisions of Sec. 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 (PSCC Act). The Plaintiff has averred in the paragraph 3 of the Plaint that the Defendant is exempted from protection under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act) by virtue of sec. 3(1)(b). It is further averred that the Defendant is also a Corporation established under the said Act. Thus, eviction suit is filed under provisions of sec. 41 of the PSCC Act on the ground that the Defendant is not entitled to protection under the provisions of the MRC Act. Defendants filed application at Exhibit-31 seeking rejection of Plaint under provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code by referring to the averments made in paragraph 19 of the Plaint, in which the Plaintiff has contended that the reliefs claimed in the Plaint arise out of statutory provisions of MRC Act. Defendants contended that the first Defendant is not a Bank nor a Corporation and that therefore Defendant is protected tenant under the provisions of the MRC Act. It was therefore contended that the suit under sec. 41 of the PSCC Act was barred. The Application was opposed by Plaintiffs by filing Affidavit-in-Reply contending that the suit under sec. 41 of the PSCC Act was maintainable in view of non-availability of protection to the Defendants under the MRC Act.

(3.) The learned Single Judge of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai allowed the application filed by the Petitioner at Exhibit-31 by its order dtd. 12/10/2022 and rejected the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code. Plaintiff filed P. Appeal No.294 of 2022 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. The Appellate Bench has allowed the Appeal and has set aside the order dtd. 12/10/2022 and has restored the suit filed by Plaintiff. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Bench, Petitioners have filed the present Revision Application.