Case Note & Summary
Two writ petitions arose from orders passed by the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai rejecting applications under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which sought declarations that eviction decrees were null and void. The dispute concerned two commercial premises in Navsari Building, Mumbai, originally tenanted by Abbas Lalji and Aziz Lalji respectively. The landlord, Kotak & Company Limited, filed R.A.E. Suits against the unknown heirs of the deceased tenants and Sud Chemie India Pvt Ltd, alleging unlawful subletting, non-user, and bona fide requirement. The trial court decreed eviction on 6 January 2025, holding that Sud Chemie India Pvt Ltd was in unauthorised occupation and not entitled to rent control protection because it was a multinational company. Sud Chemie did not appeal but filed MARJI Applications contending that the Small Causes Court lacked jurisdiction because the premises were exempted under Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, as the subtenant was a multinational company. The trial court rejected the applications on 11 July 2025, leading to these writ petitions. The petitioner argued that the exemption is qua premises, not relationship, and that a decree passed without inherent jurisdiction is non-est and the executing court can declare nullity, relying on Parwatibai v Radhika and Kersi Commissariat. The respondent argued that the petitioner had taken a contrary stand in its written statement, claiming protection under the Rent Act, and was now precluded by res judicata, relying on Erach Boman Khavar v Tukaram Shridhar Bhat. The matter was heard by Justice N.J. Jamadar; the extract provided ends during the respondent's submissions and does not include the final decision of the High Court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Executing Court Jurisdiction - Challenge to Executability of Decree - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 151 - Original Defendant No.2 applied under Section 151 CPC for declaration that eviction decree dated 6 January 2025 was null and void because the Small Causes Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The trial court rejected the application on grounds that defendant no.2 was in unauthorised occupation, no jurisdictional issue was framed, and the suit was for eviction of tenant on statutory grounds; held that the Small Causes Court had subject matter jurisdiction and issued possession warrant (Paras 2, 6.9-6.11).
B) Rent Control - Exemption from Rent Act - Exemption operates on premises not relationship - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, Section 3(1)(b) - Petitioner contended exemption from rent control legislation is qua premises and not the relationship between parties; relied on Parwatibai v Radhika and Kersi Commissariat - Held that the learned Judge misdirected himself by focusing on status of parties, but final disposition not stated in available extract (Paras 6.9, 9).
C) Civil Procedure - Res Judicata and Estoppel - Preclusion by Contrary Pleading - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 11 (implied) - Respondent contended defendant no.2 took a somersault by claiming rent act protection in written statement and later arguing exemption; thus precluded by res judicata - Held that respondent relied on Erach Boman Khavar v Tukaram Shridhar Bhat, but final determination not in extract (Paras 11-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai had jurisdiction to entertain and decide a suit for eviction against a multinational company exempted under Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999; whether the eviction decree was null and void and non-executable; whether the defendant was precluded from raising jurisdictional challenge after the decree by res judicata or estoppel.
Law Points
- Exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999 is qua premises and not relationship between parties
- decree passed by court lacking inherent jurisdiction is non-est and executable court can declare nullity
- res judicata precludes a party from taking contradictory stands
- Small Causes Court has subject matter jurisdiction over eviction suits against tenants on statutory grounds
- executing court can decline to execute a decree passed without jurisdiction
- multinational company tenant not entitled to rent control protection
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (08) 17
Writ Petition No. 10039 of 2025 in MARJI Application No. 51 of 2025 in R.A.E. Suit No. 371/582 of 2007 (with Writ Petition No. 10040 of 2025 in MARJI Application No. 50 of 2025 in R.A.E. Suit No. 370/581 of 2007)
Mr. Shailendra S. Kanetkar for Petitioner; Mr. Abhay Khandeparkar, Senior Advocate, with Rajesh A. Revankar, i/b A.G. Revankar & Co, for Respondents
Kotak & Company Limited; Unknown heirs and legal representatives of deceased Shri Abbas Lalji (through Registrar, Small Causes Court, Mumbai); Unknown heirs and legal representatives of deceased Shri Aziz Lalji (through Registrar, Small Causes Court, Mumbai)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging orders passed by Court of Small Causes in MARJI Applications under Section 151 CPC rejecting declaration that eviction decrees were null and void.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner-Original Defendant No.2 sought quashing and setting aside of orders dated 11 July 2025 rejecting MARJI Applications and consequential orders issuing possession warrant and declining stay; declaration that decree dated 6 January 2025 is null and void.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed Small Causes Court lacked jurisdiction because suit premises were exempted under Section 3(1)(b) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 as let to multinational company; decree thus non-est.
Previous Decisions
Court of Small Causes decreed eviction on 6 January 2025; MARJI Applications rejected on 11 July 2025; stay refused on 15 July 2025.
Issues
Whether the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai had jurisdiction to entertain and decide a suit for eviction against a multinational company exempted under Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Whether the eviction decree was null and void and non-executable due to lack of inherent jurisdiction, and whether the executing court could declare such nullity.
Whether the defendant no.2 was precluded from raising the jurisdictional challenge after the decree by res judicata or estoppel due to its contrary stand in written statement.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: The issue of jurisdiction was raised in pleadings and an issue was framed; the trial court answered it. The exemption under Section 3(1)(b) attaches to premises not relationship. A decree by a court lacking inherent jurisdiction is non-est; executing court can declare nullity and decline execution. Thus rejection of MARJI Application and consequential orders should be quashed.
Respondent: Defendant no.2 took a somersault by not raising maintainability issue before decree and instead claiming protection under Rent Act in written statement; cannot now argue exemption. Res judicata precludes such contradictory stand.
Ratio Decidendi
Not mentioned - the provided text does not include the final holding or ratio decidendi of the High Court.
Judgment Excerpts
the learned Judge, Court of Small Causes was persuaded to reject the challenge to the executability of the decree observing, inter alia, that the Defendant No.2 was found to be in unauthorised occupation of the Suit premises and no issue touching the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court was framed by the Court while adjudicating the Suit as it was not specifically raised.
the learned Judge misdirected himself in focusing on the status of the parties. In the process, the learned Judge ignored the settled position in law that the exemption from the Application of the rent control legislation is qua the premises and not the relationship between the parties.
Before the Trial Court, till the passing of the decree, Defendant No.2 had never raised the ground that the Suit was not maintainable before the Court of Small Causes as the premises was sub-let to Defendant No.2, a multinational Company.
Procedural History
R.A.E. Suit No. 371/582 of 2007 filed by Kotak & Company Limited against unknown heirs of Abbas Lalji and Sud Chemie India Pvt Ltd. Written statement filed by Defendant No.2. Trial court decreed eviction on 6 January 2025. Defendant No.2 filed MARJI Application No. 51 of 2025 under Section 151 CPC seeking declaration decree null and void. By order dated 11 July 2025, MARJI Application rejected; possession warrant issued; on 15 July 2025 stay refused. Defendant No.2 filed Writ Petition No. 10039 of 2025 challenging orders. Similar proceedings in R.A.E. Suit No. 370/581 of 2007 led to Writ Petition No. 10040 of 2025.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: Section 3(1)(b)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 151
