Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed appeals by the legal representatives of Mahadev P. Kambekar (original defendant/lessor) against the judgment of the Bombay High Court Division Bench which had dismissed their counterclaim for eviction and arrears of rent against Shree Krishna Woolen Mills Pvt. Ltd. (plaintiff/lessee). The dispute concerned land bearing survey Nos.58 and 60 (CTS 741, 741/1 to 741/7) at Nahur, Bhandup, Bombay suburban district. The plaintiff lessee had filed Suit No.503 of 1980 on the original side of the Bombay High Court seeking specific performance of a lease deed dated 20.06.1958, relying on clause 7 which allegedly gave them an option to purchase the land. The defendant lessor filed a written statement denying the claim and counterclaimed for eviction and arrears of rent. The Single Judge decreed both the suit for specific performance and the counterclaim for possession and rent. Both parties appealed. The Division Bench allowed both appeals: it set aside the decree for specific performance and remanded the suit for retrial (which became final as the plaintiff's SLP was dismissed), and it set aside the decree on the counterclaim, holding that the counterclaim was not maintainable in view of Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Small Causes Court, Bombay, over suits and proceedings between landlord and tenant or licensor and licensee relating to recovery of possession or rent of immovable property in Greater Bombay. The lessor appealed to the Supreme Court only against the dismissal of the counterclaim. The Supreme Court, relying on its earlier decision in Mansukhlal Dhanraj Jain v. Eknath Vithal Ogale (1995) 2 SCC 665, held that the counterclaim squarely fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court under Section 41(1) and therefore the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction - Counterclaim - Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 - The Supreme Court held that a counterclaim for possession and arrears of rent filed by a lessor against a lessee in a suit for specific performance of a lease deed pending on the original side of the Bombay High Court is not maintainable, as such a counterclaim falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court under Section 41(1) of the Act. The Court relied on Mansukhlal Dhanraj Jain v. Eknath Vithal Ogale, (1995) 2 SCC 665, which interpreted Section 41(1) to cover all suits and proceedings between licensor and licensee or landlord and tenant relating to recovery of possession or rent of immovable property situated in Greater Bombay, irrespective of value. (Paras 20-24) B) Property Law - Lease - Specific Performance - Counterclaim for Eviction - The dispute arose from a lease deed dated 20.06.1958 over land in Nahur, Bhandup, Bombay. The lessee sued for specific performance of clause 7 of the lease, claiming a right to purchase the land. The lessor counterclaimed for eviction and arrears of rent. The Single Judge decreed both the suit and the counterclaim. The Division Bench set aside the decree on the counterclaim as not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the counterclaim related to recovery of possession and rent, which is exclusively triable by the Small Causes Court. (Paras 3-16, 20-24)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court was right in dismissing the defendant's counterclaim for eviction and arrears of rent as not maintainable in a suit for specific performance of a lease deed pending on the original side of the High Court, in view of Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the counterclaim for eviction and arrears of rent fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court, Bombay, under Section 41(1) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, and therefore the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act
- 1882
- ousts jurisdiction of the High Court in its original civil jurisdiction to entertain counterclaims for possession and rent between landlord and tenant or licensor and licensee in respect of premises situated in Greater Bombay
- such counterclaims being exclusively triable by the Small Causes Court.
