1. Background of the Case:

• Petitioner: Filed a suit for specific performance of contract.
• Respondent: Filed a counter-claim asserting possession and sought a declaration that the petitioner was a trespasser after allegedly failing to vacate the premises upon repayment of a loan tied to a leave-and-license agreement.

2. Dispute on Counter-Claim:

• Petitioner challenged the counter-claim under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), citing:
  • Jurisdictional Bar: Section 33 read with Section 47 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
  • Improper Valuation: Allegation of non-payment of appropriate court fees.

3. Trial Court's Decision:

• The trial court dismissed the petitioner's objections, holding:
  • Jurisdiction was not barred as the respondent claimed the petitioner was a trespasser, not a tenant.
  • Court fees could be assessed after deciding the respondent's entitlement to relief.

Court Analysis and Ratio Decidendi:

1. Jurisdictional Bar Under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999:

• Relevant Provisions Discussed:

  • Section 24: Provides remedies for landlords to recover possession through a Competent Authority, not civil courts, if premises are given on license.
  • Section 47: Bars civil courts from adjudicating matters under the Act.

• Court's Finding:
  The counter-claim relied on the leave-and-license relationship, making it a landlord-tenant dispute subject to the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Civil courts lacked jurisdiction.

2. Payment of Court Fees:

• Applicable Rule: Order VII Rule 11(b), CPC mandates rejection of plaints where reliefs are undervalued.
• Court's Finding:
  The trial court erred by linking court fees to the outcome of the case instead of the claims in the counter-claim. Proper valuation was a prerequisite.

3. Substance Over Form in Pleadings:

• Relying on precedents like Mahadev P. Kambekar vs. Shree Krishna Woolen Mills Pvt. Ltd., the court emphasized assessing the real nature of the suit rather than the isolated reliefs sought.
• The counter-claim's substance sought recovery of possession, a matter exclusively under the Competent Authority's jurisdiction.

Decision:

• The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the trial court's order.
• The counter-claim was returned to the respondent per Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC for filing before the appropriate authority.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

   • Order VII Rule 10: Return of plaints to appropriate courts.
   • Order VII Rule 11: Rejection of plaints for jurisdictional or valuation defects.

2. Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999:

   • Section 24: Recovery of possession by landlords.
   • Section 47: Bar on civil courts' jurisdiction.

Subjects:

Civil Procedure, Jurisdiction, Rent Control Act, Leave and License, Counter-Claim, Court Fees