Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, concerning the interpretation of Section 33(1) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and Section 17(1) proviso of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The petitioners, tenants, had filed a suit challenging the respondents' claim for possession. The learned Single Judge referred the question of whether the mandatory deposit requirement under Section 17(1) proviso of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 applies to suits under Section 33(1) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 when tried by a Civil Judge Junior Division or Senior Division in the absence of a Small Causes Court. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice Anil S. Kilor, delivered the judgment on 27 June 2022. The Court held that the proviso is mandatory and applies to such suits. The tenant must deposit rent or compensation at the first hearing; failure to do so results in the defence being struck off. The Court relied on the decision in Akbarali Husenali Gulamreza v. Hotel Rexalia Private Ltd. (2002) 2 Mh.L.J. 133. The Court answered the reference accordingly, directing the matter to be placed before the appropriate bench for disposal.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Jurisdiction - Section 33(1) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 17(1) proviso Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 - The question was whether the mandatory deposit requirement under Section 17(1) proviso of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 applies to suits under Section 33(1) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 when tried by a Civil Judge Junior Division or Senior Division. The Court held that the proviso applies and is mandatory; non-compliance leads to striking off defence. (Paras 1-10) B) Rent Control - Deposit of Rent - Section 17(1) proviso Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 - The Court interpreted the proviso as mandatory, requiring the tenant to deposit rent or compensation at the first hearing. Failure to do so results in the defence being struck off. The Court relied on the decision in Akbarali Husenali Gulamreza v. Hotel Rexalia Private Ltd. (2002) 2 Mh.L.J. 133. (Paras 5-10) C) Rent Control - Applicability of Small Cause Courts Act - Section 33(1) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The Court clarified that Section 33(1) confers jurisdiction on the Small Causes Court, and in its absence, on the Civil Judge Junior Division or Senior Division. The procedure under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, including Section 17(1) proviso, applies to such suits. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the provisions of Section 17(1) proviso of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 are required to be complied with in suits under Section 33(1) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, when the suit is tried by a Civil Judge Junior Division or Senior Division in the absence of a Small Causes Court.
Final Decision
The Court answered the reference by holding that the provisions of Section 17(1) proviso of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 are required to be complied with in suits under Section 33(1) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, even when the suit is tried by a Civil Judge Junior Division or Senior Division. The matter was directed to be placed before the appropriate bench for disposal.
Law Points
- Section 33(1) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Section 17(1) proviso of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act
- 1887
- mandatory deposit of rent at first hearing
- striking off defence for non-compliance
- applicability to Civil Judge Junior Division or Senior Division when Small Causes Court is absent
