Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M/s. Sanyam Realtors Private Limited (original defendant no.1), challenged the judgment and order dated 28.8.2012 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, in S.C. Suit No.2849 of 2006. The suit was filed by Shyamji Bhagirathi Yadav (plaintiff) against the appellant and Lalchand Purushottam Yadav (defendant no.2) seeking reliefs concerning the suit premises, which were originally tenanted to Mathuraprasad Mittal Yadav. The plaintiff claimed to be the grandson and legal heir of the original tenant. The trial court framed issues regarding proof of tenancy and who inherited the tenancy rights, and held that an agreement dated 26.10.2005 executed between defendant nos.1 and 2 was not binding on the plaintiff. The appellant contended that the City Civil Court lacked jurisdiction because the plaint raised questions relating to tenancy, which are exclusively triable by the Small Cause Court under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The appellant argued that the learned Judge ought to have first addressed the jurisdiction issue based on the plaint averments. The respondents supported the impugned judgment. The High Court examined the plaint averments and found that the suit primarily involved questions of tenancy, including who is the tenant after the death of the original tenant. The court held that such questions are exclusively cognizable by the Small Cause Court under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order, and directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the proper court. The court also disposed of the civil application.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction - Ouster of Civil Court's Jurisdiction - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Where the plaint raises questions relating to tenancy or who is the tenant after the death of the original tenant, the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court is ousted and such questions are exclusively triable by the Small Cause Court under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The court held that the learned City Civil Judge erred in deciding the issue of tenancy on merits without first determining jurisdiction based on plaint averments (Paras 3-7). B) Rent Control - Tenancy - Determination of Tenant - Sections 5, 7, 15 Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The dispute regarding who inherited the tenancy rights amongst the heirs of the original tenant Mathuraprasad Mittal Yadav is a question exclusively cognizable by the Small Cause Court. The agreement dated 26.10.2005 between defendant nos.1 and 2 was held not binding on the plaintiff, but the court lacked jurisdiction to decide such tenancy issues (Paras 1-2, 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the City Civil Court, Mumbai had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit when the plaint raised questions regarding tenancy of the suit premises and the status of legal heir as tenant under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 28.8.2012 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, in S.C. Suit No.2849 of 2006 is set aside. The plaint is directed to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the proper court. Civil Application No.3849 of 2012 is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of civil court ousted when tenancy question arises
- Small Cause Court has exclusive jurisdiction under Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Plaint averments determine jurisdiction
- Issue of tenancy must be decided by special court
