Case Note & Summary
The respondents, as trustees of M.F. Cama Ahornan Institute and M.M. Cama Education Fund, filed L.E. Suit No.96/143 of 2008 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay for eviction of the defendant (the revision applicant) and possession of the suit premises, along with mesne profits and/or compensation for unauthorized occupation. The defendant was a former employee of the trust who had been allotted the suit premises as a gratuitous/service licensee without payment of rent. His services were terminated on 18.11.2004, and he was requested to vacate. Upon his failure to do so, the plaintiffs initially filed Suit No.2974/2005 before the High Court, which held that it lacked jurisdiction and that the Small Cause Court was the appropriate forum. During that suit, the High Court appointed a Court Receiver, and the defendant was directed to pay Rs.5,000 per month as royalty. After the plaint was returned, the plaintiffs filed the present suit in the Small Cause Court. The plaintiffs filed an application (Exhibit 12) seeking a direction to the defendant to deposit arrears of compensation at Rs.5,000 per month from October 2008 onwards. The defendant contested, arguing that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction because the suit fell under Chapter VIII of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and Section 47 of that Act ousted the jurisdiction of civil courts. The trial court allowed the application, directing the defendant to deposit the arrears. The defendant filed the present civil revision application challenging that order. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the Small Cause Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the power to direct deposit under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC was ancillary and could be exercised regardless of the final determination of jurisdiction. The court noted that the defendant had been paying Rs.5,000 per month as per the earlier High Court order and that the trial court's order was merely a continuation of that arrangement. The revision was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Deposit - Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC - Jurisdiction - Small Cause Court has jurisdiction to direct deposit of arrears of compensation in a suit for eviction and mesne profits filed by a landlord against a licensee, even if the suit is under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The court held that the power under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC is ancillary and can be exercised regardless of the final jurisdiction of the court, as long as the suit is properly instituted - Held that the trial court's order directing deposit of Rs.5,000 per month from October 2008 was within its competence (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Small Cause Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for eviction and possession filed by a trust against a former employee/licensee, and whether the court can direct deposit of arrears of compensation under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application, upholding the trial court's order directing the defendant to deposit arrears of compensation at Rs.5,000 per month from October 2008. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Small Cause Court
- Eviction of licensee
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Section 47
- Chapter VIII
- Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC
- Mesne profits
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (09) 54
Civil Revision Application No. 181 of 2010
Mr. N. Dinkar Rao for petitioner; Mr. B.K. Bali i/b Bali Associates for respondents
Mr. Mancherji Jamshedji Cama and others (Trustees of M.F. Cama Ahornan Institute and M.M. Cama Education Fund)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision against an order of the Small Cause Court directing deposit of arrears of compensation in an eviction suit.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (defendant) sought to set aside the trial court's order directing him to deposit arrears of compensation at Rs.5,000 per month.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the eviction suit due to the bar under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Previous Decisions
Earlier, the High Court in Suit No.2974/2005 held that it lacked jurisdiction and that the Small Cause Court was the appropriate forum. During that suit, the High Court appointed a Court Receiver and directed the defendant to pay Rs.5,000 per month as royalty.
Issues
Whether the Small Cause Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for eviction and possession filed by a trust against a former employee/licensee under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Whether the trial court could direct deposit of arrears of compensation under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC pending determination of jurisdiction.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the suit was governed by Chapter VIII of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and Section 47 ousted the jurisdiction of civil courts, so the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction.
Respondents argued that the suit was for eviction of a licensee and the Small Cause Court had jurisdiction; the order for deposit was ancillary and within the court's power.
Ratio Decidendi
The Small Cause Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for eviction and mesne profits against a licensee, even if the suit involves provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The power to direct deposit under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC is ancillary and can be exercised regardless of the final determination of jurisdiction, as long as the suit is properly instituted.
Judgment Excerpts
The respondents, as trustees of M.F. Cama Ahornan Institute and M.M. Cama Education Fund, filed L.E. Suit No.96/143 of 2008 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay for eviction of the defendant and possession of the suit premises and also for payment of mesne profits and/or compensation for unauthorised occupation by the defendant.
The defendant, who is the present revision applicant, contested the application and contended that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction and possession as in view of the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the plaintiffs could have filed application before the competent authority and by virtue of Section 47 of the Rent Act, the jurisdiction of Civil Court has been ousted.
Procedural History
The respondents filed L.E. Suit No.96/143 of 2008 in the Small Cause Court, Bombay, for eviction and mesne profits. The plaintiffs filed application Exhibit 12 for deposit of arrears. The trial court allowed the application. The defendant filed Civil Revision Application No. 181 of 2010 in the High Court challenging that order. The High Court dismissed the revision.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: Section 47, Chapter VIII
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order XXXIX Rule 10
