Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Arun Bhaskar Adarkar, a senior citizen of Indian origin residing in the USA, filed a suit in the Bombay High Court seeking possession of a flat in Cuffe Parade, Mumbai, from his sister (Defendant No.1) and her husband (Defendant No.2). The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were licensees who had been permitted to occupy the flat temporarily, and that their license had been revoked. The defendants raised a preliminary objection that the suit was barred by Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, which vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Small Causes Court for matters relating to recovery of possession of premises governed by the Act. The court framed a preliminary issue on jurisdiction and decided it without evidence, as the facts were admitted. The court held that the relationship between the parties was that of landlord and tenant or licensor and licensee in respect of premises governed by the Act, and therefore the Small Causes Court had exclusive jurisdiction. The suit was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the plaintiff to approach the appropriate forum.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction - Bar under Rent Control Act - Section 33 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The court examined whether a suit for possession filed by a co-tenant/licensor against a licensee is barred by Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The plaintiff claimed the defendants were licensees whose license was revoked, but the court held that the relationship between the parties was that of landlord and tenant or licensor and licensee in respect of premises governed by the Act, and therefore the Small Causes Court had exclusive jurisdiction. The suit was dismissed as not maintainable. (Paras 1-10) B) Rent Control - Licensee vs Tenant - Determination of Relationship - Section 33 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The court considered whether the defendants were tenants or licensees. The plaintiff argued that the defendants were mere licensees, but the court noted that the defendants had been in possession since 1970 and had paid rent to the plaintiff. The court held that the question of whether the defendants were tenants or licensees was a matter for the Small Causes Court to decide, and the civil court had no jurisdiction to determine it. (Paras 3-8) C) Civil Procedure - Preliminary Issue - Jurisdiction - Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC, 1908 - The court framed a preliminary issue on jurisdiction and decided it without evidence, as the facts were admitted. The court held that the issue of jurisdiction could be decided as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC, and since the suit was barred by Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the suit was dismissed. (Paras 1-2, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for possession of a tenanted flat in view of Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, which bars civil courts from entertaining suits relating to recovery of possession of premises governed by the Act.
Final Decision
The preliminary issue is answered in the affirmative. The suit is dismissed as not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. No order as to costs. Liberty to the plaintiff to approach the appropriate forum.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of civil court barred under Section 33 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Suit for possession based on licensee/licensee revocation falls within exclusive jurisdiction of Small Causes Court
- Preliminary issue of jurisdiction can be decided without evidence if facts admitted
