Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Subhash Bothra, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 41 of 2015 before the Civil Judge Junior Division, Ghodnadi, Shirur, Pune, seeking eviction of the respondent, Karjala Ashalata Naidu, from the suit premises under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 read with the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The respondent had earlier filed Special Civil Suit No. 1213 of 2014 before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune, seeking a declaration that the sale deed and lease deed in respect of the same premises were illegal and void. The respondent filed an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in the eviction suit, seeking its stay pending disposal of the prior declaratory suit. The trial court allowed the application, staying the eviction suit. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The petitioner argued that the two suits involved different jurisdictions: the eviction suit was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court under the Rent Control Act, while the declaratory suit was before a Civil Court under Section 9 CPC. Therefore, Section 10 CPC, which requires the matters in issue to be directly and substantially the same, could not apply. The respondent contended that both suits arose from the same bundle of facts and that the trial court had correctly stayed the suit. The High Court, after hearing both sides, observed that the two suits were between the same parties but involved different causes of action and jurisdictions. The prior suit sought a declaration regarding the validity of documents, while the subsequent suit was for eviction based on landlord-tenant relationship. The Court held that the matters in issue were not directly and substantially the same, and the trial court had erred in applying Section 10 CPC. The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to proceed with the eviction suit in accordance with law. The petitioner's alternative submission for transfer under Section 24 CPC was not pressed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Stay of Suit - Section 10 CPC - Jurisdictional Difference - The High Court held that a suit for eviction under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 and Maharashtra Rent Control Act cannot be stayed under Section 10 CPC pending a prior declaratory suit before a Civil Court under Section 9 CPC, as the jurisdiction of the two courts is different and the matters in issue are not directly and substantially the same. (Paras 5-6)
B) Civil Procedure - Transfer of Suit - Section 24 CPC - Alternative Remedy - The Court declined to exercise power under Section 24 CPC to transfer the eviction suit to the Civil Court, as the petitioner did not press the alternative submission. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a suit for eviction filed before a Small Causes Court can be stayed under Section 10 CPC pending disposal of a prior declaratory suit filed before a Civil Court, given the difference in jurisdiction between the two courts.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 23 April 2019, and directed the trial court to proceed with Regular Civil Suit No. 41 of 2015 in accordance with law. The alternative submission for transfer under Section 24 CPC was not pressed.
Law Points
- Section 10 CPC
- jurisdiction
- stay of suit
- Provincial Small Cause Courts Act
- 1887
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- Section 9 CPC
- Section 24 CPC
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (08) 30
Civil Writ Petition No. 2281 of 2020
Mr. Abhishek R. Avchat (for Petitioner), Mr. S.L. Babar (AGP for State), Mr. Tejas D. Deshmukh (for Respondent)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging an order of the trial court staying an eviction suit under Section 10 CPC.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought setting aside of the order dated 23 April 2019 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Ghodnadi, Shirur, Pune, which allowed the respondent's application under Section 10 CPC and stayed Regular Civil Suit No. 41 of 2015.
Filing Reason
The petitioner filed the eviction suit against the respondent-tenant under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 and Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The respondent had earlier filed a declaratory suit before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune, challenging the sale deed and lease deed. The trial court stayed the eviction suit under Section 10 CPC.
Previous Decisions
The trial court allowed the respondent's application below Exhibit 14 under Section 10 CPC and stayed the petitioner's suit (Regular Civil Suit No. 41 of 2015) pending disposal of Special Civil Suit No. 1213 of 2014.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in staying the eviction suit under Section 10 CPC when the two suits involved different jurisdictions and causes of action.
Whether the matters in issue in the two suits were directly and substantially the same for the purpose of Section 10 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the jurisdiction of the two courts was different: the eviction suit was under the Small Causes Court and Rent Control Act, while the declaratory suit was under Section 9 CPC. Therefore, Section 10 CPC could not apply. Alternatively, he sought transfer under Section 24 CPC.
Respondent argued that both suits arose from the same bundle of facts and the trial court correctly stayed the suit under Section 10 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi
For the application of Section 10 CPC, the matters in issue in the two suits must be directly and substantially the same. Where the jurisdiction of the two courts is different, as in the case of a Small Causes Court under the Rent Control Act and a Civil Court under Section 9 CPC, the matters in issue cannot be considered directly and substantially the same, and a stay under Section 10 CPC is not warranted.
Judgment Excerpts
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, at the outset it needs to be observed that these are two suits pending between the same parties.
The jurisdiction of the Court in the suit in question (Regular Civil Suit no.41 of 2015) arises under the provisions of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act,1887 read with the Maharashtra Rent Control Act being a suit filed for eviction of the respondent-defendant-tenant, whereas jurisdiction of the Court in the prior suit which is filed by the respondent before the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division is the jurisdiction of a Civil Court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure being a declaratory suit.
In the light of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23 April 2019 is set aside.
Procedural History
The respondent filed Special Civil Suit No. 1213 of 2014 before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune, seeking a declaration that the sale deed and lease deed were illegal. The petitioner then filed Regular Civil Suit No. 41 of 2015 before the Civil Judge Junior Division, Ghodnadi, Shirur, Pune, for eviction of the respondent. The respondent filed an application below Exhibit 14 under Section 10 CPC in the eviction suit, which was allowed by the trial court on 23 April 2019, staying the eviction suit. The petitioner challenged this order by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 2281 of 2020 before the Bombay High Court, which was heard and allowed on 5 August 2020.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 10, 24, 9
- Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887:
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act:
