RAMJI Vs. GAUTAMCHAND S O PUNAMCHAND ABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who were the defendants before the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Jalna, in Regular Civil Suit No. 358 of 1982 are invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as they feel aggrieved due to the failure on the part of the trial Court to frame an issue about the jurisdiction of the trial Court.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this litigation may be briefly stated as follows: The respondent was the landlord of the tenements which admittedly were let out to the present petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 (Original defendants Nos. 1 and 2). It is the case of respondent that though the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were his tenants, their tenancy was validly terminated by the quit notice, as a result of which their possession over the tenements assumed the characteristic of the trespassers. They, therefore, claimed Rs. 4,500/- by way of mesne profits. Petitioner No. 3 has been joined on the ground that he has been illegally inducted in the suit tenements subsequently.

(3.) Apart from other defences raised (with which we are not concerned for the present) it was the contention of the present petitioners that the suit was one between the landlord and the tenants and as such, there could be no question of defendants being trespassers and plaintiff acquiring a right to claim any damages for occupation from them. It was their contention that the point involved in the suit was regarding the tenancy and hence, it was exclusively the Court of Rent Controller which had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the controversy. It was also alleged that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and the suit as framed was not maintainable.