Bombay High Court Allows Landlord's Petition Challenging City Civil Court's Jurisdiction in Landlord-Tenant Dispute Over Open Land. Exclusive Jurisdiction of Small Causes Court Under Section 41 of Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, Prevails Over Rent Control Act Applicability.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 56
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute originated from a declaratory suit filed by the First Respondent (tenant) against the Petitioner (landlord) in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay, seeking a declaration and injunction regarding an open space admeasuring 10' x 10' let out to him in 1965-66. The Trial Court refused interim relief on the ground that the premises was open land not covered under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 2000, as per the definition of 'premises' in Section 7(9). The Appellate Bench affirmed this order. Subsequently, the First Respondent withdrew the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit and instituted a new suit in the City Civil Court. The Petitioner raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, contending that the suit was between landlord and tenant and thus fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. The City Civil Court overruled the objection, leading to the present writ petition. The High Court analyzed the settled legal position that Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Small Causes Court to try suits between landlord and tenant, irrespective of the applicability of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The court held that the mere fact that the premises is open land does not oust the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court if the relationship of landlord and tenant exists. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the City Civil Court to return the plaint for presentation to the proper court.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction - Exclusive Jurisdiction of Small Causes Court - Section 41 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 - Suit between landlord and tenant regarding open land let out as tenancy - The court held that the Small Causes Court has exclusive jurisdiction to try suits between landlord and tenant, regardless of whether the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 2000 applies to the premises. The mere fact that the premises is open land does not oust the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court if the relationship of landlord and tenant exists. (Paras 4-6)

B) Rent Control - Applicability - Definition of Premises - Section 7(9) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 2000 - Open land not appurtenant to building - The court noted that the Trial Judge had held that open land not appurtenant to a building does not attract the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 2000. However, this does not affect the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. (Para 2)

C) Civil Procedure - Withdrawal of Suit - Liberty to File Fresh Suit - Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC - The First Respondent withdrew the earlier suit from the Small Causes Court with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, and then instituted a suit in the City Civil Court. The court held that the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction as the suit falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court. (Paras 2, 6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the City Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of open land let out to a tenant, given the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 17th June 2005 of the City Civil Court, and directed the City Civil Court to return the plaint for presentation to the proper court having jurisdiction.

Law Points

  • Exclusive jurisdiction of Small Causes Court under Section 41 of Presidency Small Cause Courts Act
  • 1882
  • over suits between landlord and tenant
  • irrespective of applicability of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
  • 2000
  • Definition of 'premises' under Section 7(9) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
  • excludes open land not appurtenant to building
  • Maintainability of suit in City Civil Court when relationship of landlord and tenant exists.
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2006 LawText (BOM) (06) 5

Writ Petition No.1125 of 2006

2006-06-06

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

Mr. N. G. Chhatre for the Petitioner, Mr. B.A. Singh for the Respondents

Shri Arun V. Subhedar

Shyamacharan Bhagwati Prasad Tiwari & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the order of the City Civil Court overruling the objection to its jurisdiction in a landlord-tenant suit.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner (landlord) sought to set aside the order of the City Civil Court dated 17th June 2005 and to hold that the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Filing Reason

The First Respondent (tenant) filed a suit in the City Civil Court after withdrawing an earlier suit from the Small Causes Court. The Petitioner objected to the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court on the ground that the suit was between landlord and tenant and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court.

Previous Decisions

The Trial Court of Small Causes refused interim relief on 7th March 2001, holding that the open land was not covered under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 2000. The Appellate Bench affirmed this on 31st June 2002. The suit was withdrawn on 27th November 2002 with liberty to file a fresh suit.

Issues

Whether the City Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of open land let out to a tenant, given the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner submitted that the inapplicability of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act does not mean the suit is not covered under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Small Causes Court for suits between landlord and tenant. Respondent argued that since the premises is open land not covered under the Rent Control Act, the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The Small Causes Court has exclusive jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, to try suits between landlord and tenant, regardless of whether the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 2000 applies to the premises. The relationship of landlord and tenant is sufficient to attract the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court.

Judgment Excerpts

The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Small Causes Court to try suits between landlord and tenant, irrespective of the applicability of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 2000. The mere fact that the premises is open land does not oust the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court if the relationship of landlord and tenant exists.

Procedural History

The First Respondent filed RAD Suit No.918 of 2000 in the Court of Small Causes for declaration and injunction. Interim relief was refused on 7th March 2001, affirmed on appeal on 31st June 2002. The suit was withdrawn on 27th November 2002 with liberty to file a fresh suit. The First Respondent then filed a suit in the City Civil Court. The Petitioner objected to jurisdiction; the City Civil Court overruled the objection on 17th June 2005. The Petitioner filed the present writ petition on 6th June 2006.

Acts & Sections

  • Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882: Section 41
  • Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 2000: Section 7(9)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Dismisses State Appeal Against Acquittal in Murder Case Due to Unreliable Testimony. The court upheld the acquittal as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, with the sole eye-witness's testimony being in...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Acquits Mother in Suicide Pact Case Due to Lack of Murderous Intent. Poisoning of Children Held Not Murder as Act Was Part of Failed Suicide Pact Without Intent to Kill Under Section 300 IPC.