Case Note & Summary
The case involves two Civil Revision Applications filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the original defendant no.1 (landlord) and defendant no.2 (new tenant) against the judgment and decree dated 14 February 2023 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Bombay. The suit premises is a residential room in Mumbai. The original tenant, Udaybhan Singh, died in 1989, survived by his wife Pyaridevi and son Umakant (plaintiff). Pyaridevi died in 2003. The plaintiff filed a declaratory suit (R.A.D. Suit No. 1556 of 2009) claiming tenancy under Section 7(15)(c) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act), seeking declaration as tenant, transfer of rent receipts, and eviction of defendant no.2 (new tenant) from the suit premises. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 28 September 2018. The plaintiff appealed under Section 34 of the MRC Act, and the Appellate Court allowed the appeal on 14 February 2023, declaring the plaintiff as tenant and directing defendants to hand over possession. The defendants challenged this in the High Court. The main legal issues were whether the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit against the new tenant (defendant no.2) and whether the plaintiff proved his tenancy. The High Court, after hearing submissions, held that the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction under Section 33 of the MRC Act to entertain the suit as the plaintiff was a tenant seeking possession from a trespasser. The court also upheld the finding that the plaintiff was the lawful tenant. The High Court dismissed both Civil Revision Applications, confirming the Appellate Court's decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Jurisdiction - Small Causes Court - Section 33(1)(c) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The Small Causes Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try suits between landlord and tenant for recovery of rent or possession. In the present case, the plaintiff claimed tenancy and sought possession from the new tenant, who was inducted by the landlord. The Appellate Court held that the suit was maintainable as the plaintiff was a tenant and the new tenant was a trespasser, and the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to grant relief against trespassers in a suit for possession by a tenant. (Paras 14-20) B) Rent Control - Tenancy Rights - Legal Heir - Section 7(15)(c) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The plaintiff, son of the original tenant, claimed tenancy after the death of his mother. The Appellate Court held that the plaintiff proved that his father was the tenant and that he became tenant after his mother's death. The evidence showed that the plaintiff was residing in the suit premises and paying rent. (Paras 11-12) C) Rent Control - Eviction - Trespasser - The new tenant inducted by the landlord without the consent of the lawful tenant is a trespasser. The tenant can seek eviction of such trespasser from the Small Causes Court. The court has jurisdiction to order possession against a trespasser in a suit by a tenant. (Paras 14-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit against the new tenant (defendant no.2) for possession, and whether the plaintiff proved his tenancy rights as legal heir of the original tenant.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed both Civil Revision Applications, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14 February 2023 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Bombay.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Small Causes Court under Section 33 of MRC Act
- 1999
- Definition of landlord and tenant under Section 7 of MRC Act
- Tenancy rights of legal heir under Section 7(15)(c) of MRC Act
- Eviction suit against trespasser
- Mesne profits
