HARIBHAU GULABRAO NAKSHANE Vs. VINAYAK RAMCHANDRA KSHIRSAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is under challenge is an order made by appellate Court reversing order made by trial Court returning plaint to respondent/landlord.

(2.) Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the petitioner being a tenant, the suit cannot be entertained for want of permission from the rent controller under The C.P. And Berar Letting Of Premises And Rent Control Order, 1949. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, trial Court had rightly returned the plaint, and therefore, the appellate Court could not have interfered with the said order. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside the appellate order impugned in the present writ petition.

(3.) Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent/landlord opposed the writ petition and argued that it was never his case that the petitioner was his tenant. On the contrary, it was specifically the case of the respondent/plaintiff that petitioner was licensee, who was kept only for a period of 15 days, and therefore, instead of returning the plaint, the trial Court could have framed issues, if the same arose from the pleadings of the petitioner/defendant as to whether the petitioner was a tenant or a licensee. But then on such disputed question of fact the trial Court erred in returning the plaint.