Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Depe Global Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd., is the landlord, and the Respondent, MPIL Corporation Ltd., is the tenant in respect of suit premises in Mumbai. The landlord filed TE & R Suit No. 198/211 of 2003 in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai for recovery of possession. The tenant filed an application (Exh. 26) challenging the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court, arguing that since the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 did not apply to the tenancy because the tenant was a limited company with a paid-up share capital of Rs. 1 crore or more (as per Section 3(1)(b) of that Act), the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction. The trial court dismissed the application, holding that it had jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. The landlord filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging that order. The High Court examined Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, which confers jurisdiction on the Small Causes Court to entertain suits between landlord and tenant for recovery of possession, irrespective of the value of the subject matter. Sub-section (2) of Section 41 excludes suits under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955, and the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, but does not exclude suits under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The High Court held that the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court is not dependent on the applicability of the Rent Control Act. The court reasoned that Section 41(1) gives wide jurisdiction, and the exclusion in Section 41(2) is specific and does not cover the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Therefore, the Small Causes Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction of Small Causes Court - Section 41 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 - The Court of Small Causes has jurisdiction to entertain and try all suits between landlord and tenant relating to recovery of possession of immovable property situated in Greater Bombay, irrespective of the value of the subject matter, and this jurisdiction is not ousted merely because the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 does not apply to the tenancy by virtue of Section 3(1)(b) of that Act. The exclusion under Section 41(2) applies only to suits under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955, and the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, and not to suits under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of possession between a landlord and tenant where the tenancy is not governed by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 by virtue of Section 3(1)(b) of that Act?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai dated 26/9/2011, and held that the Small Causes Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Small Causes Court under Section 41 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act
- 1882 is not dependent on applicability of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Section 3(1)(b) Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999 exempts companies with paid-up share capital of Rs. 1 crore or more
- Section 41(2) Presidency Small Cause Courts Act
- 1882 excludes suits under certain Acts but not under Maharashtra Rent Control Act
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (10) 25
Writ Petition No. 8355 of 2011
Mr. Haresh Jagtiani, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. Yashpal Jain, Mr. Suprabh Jain, Mr. Manish Mirpuri i/b. Haresh Jagtiani & Associates for Petitioner; Mr. D.D. Madan, Sr. Advocate a/w Mikhail Bahl i/b. Sonal Doshi & Co. for Respondent
Depe Global Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
MPIL Corporation Ltd. (formerly known as Mather & Platt (India) Ltd.)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai dismissing the tenant's application challenging jurisdiction.
Remedy Sought
The Petitioner (landlord) sought to uphold the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court to try the suit for recovery of possession.
Filing Reason
The Respondent (tenant) filed an application (Exh. 26) in the suit challenging the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court on the ground that the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 did not apply to the tenancy.
Previous Decisions
The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai dismissed the tenant's application Exh. 26 by Judgment and Order dated 26/9/2011, holding that the court had jurisdiction.
Issues
Whether the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of possession between a landlord and tenant where the tenancy is not governed by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 by virtue of Section 3(1)(b) of that Act?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner (landlord) argued that Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 confers jurisdiction on the Small Causes Court to entertain suits between landlord and tenant for recovery of possession irrespective of the applicability of the Rent Control Act.
Respondent (tenant) argued that since the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 did not apply to the tenancy, the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 to entertain suits between landlord and tenant for recovery of possession is not dependent on the applicability of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The exclusion under Section 41(2) applies only to suits under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955, and the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, and not to suits under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 41(1) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 confers jurisdiction on the Court of Small Causes to entertain and try all suits and proceedings between a landlord and tenant relating to the recovery of possession of any immovable property situated in Greater Bombay, irrespective of the value of the subject matter.
Sub-section (2) of Section 41 excludes suits under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955, and the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, but does not exclude suits under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Procedural History
The landlord filed TE & R Suit No. 198/211 of 2003 in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai for recovery of possession. The tenant filed application Exh. 26 challenging jurisdiction. The trial court dismissed the application on 26/9/2011. The landlord filed Writ Petition No. 8355 of 2011 in the High Court of Bombay challenging that order. The High Court heard the petition and dismissed it on 21/10/2011.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
- Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882: Section 41
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: Section 3(1)(b)
