T T BLADES Vs. P G NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appeal is filed by the original plaintiff against the original defendant. The plaintiff is a partnership firm and owner of the suit properties involved in this matter. The respondent-defendant was, admittedly, an employee of the plaintiff and for discharge of his duties as an employee he was provided with residential accommodation which is the suit property. In 1990, the respondent took voluntary retirement, but inspite of retiring from service of the plaintiff, he did not vacate the premises given to him as an employee. Therefore, the plaintiff filed L.E. & C. Suit No.25/32 of 1991 under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Court Act before the Small Cause Court at Mumbai. The defendant was directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month as compensation/rent pending the suit. That order was confirmed in Appeal filed by the defendant. Inspite of that, he did not make payment and, therefore, his defence was struck down. In view of this, the evidence of the plaintiff was recorded by the trial Court. However, it appears that after evidence was led, it was argued on behalf of the defendant that in view of the Division Bench authority of this Court in Ramesh Dwarkadas Mehra vs. Indravati Dwarkadas Mehra 2001(3) MR 668, a suit against a licensee is not maintainable in the Small Cause Court. The learned trial Court, relying on that authority, passed the impugned order to return the plaint to the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for filing before the competent court having jurisdiction. That order has been challenged in the present Appeal.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) Admittedly, after the impugned order was passed by the trial Court, the Full Bench of this Court in Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha and Anr. vs. Smt. Manharbala Jeram Damodar and Ors. 2007 (5) Mh.L.J.341 has clearly held that suit by a licensor against a gratuitous licensee is tenable under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. In view of this authority, the authority in Ramesh Dwarkadas Mehra is no more good law. In view of the Full Bench authority, the Small Cause court has got jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. As the legal position is now settled, the Appeal deserves to be allowed.