Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment and order dated 30th March 1994 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai, holding that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try Suit No. 7419 of 1992 filed by the appellants against respondent no.1 and others. The suit related to Flat no.19, Maheshwari Mansion, Mumbai, which was originally taken on rent by Mahabirprasad Mantri, the late husband of original appellant no.1. Respondent no.1 is the grand-daughter of late Mahabirprasad. The appellants alleged that respondent no.1, after her marriage, lived with her husband at Vapi, and upon separation, started living with her parents in flat no.36 in the same building. Due to strained relations with her step-mother, she had to leave that premises. Appellant no.1, being the grandmother, allowed respondent no.1 to stay gratuitously in one room in the suit flat until her divorce proceedings were over and she got remarried or made alternate arrangements. Subsequently, the gratuitous licence was terminated, but respondent no.1 continued to occupy the room, leading to the filing of a suit for possession in the City Civil Court, Mumbai. Respondent no.1 contested the suit, contending that she was living in the suit flat as a member of the family of her grandfather Mahabirprasad and on his death she had inherited the tenancy by virtue of Section 5(1)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. She also contended that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The trial court upheld the objection and dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction. The appellants appealed to the High Court. The High Court considered the issue of jurisdiction and held that the City Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. The court reasoned that the jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of the plaint allegations, and the plaint clearly stated that respondent no.1 was a gratuitous licensee, not a tenant. The court noted that the Small Causes Court has exclusive jurisdiction only in suits between landlord and tenant relating to recovery of possession or rent, but a suit against a licensee is not within that exclusive jurisdiction. The court also observed that the defendant's claim of tenancy does not oust the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. The High Court set aside the trial court's order and remanded the suit for trial on merits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction - City Civil Court vs Small Causes Court - Suit for possession against gratuitous licensee - The City Civil Court has jurisdiction to try a suit for possession against a gratuitous licensee, as the suit does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court under Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The court must decide the issue of jurisdiction based on the plaint allegations, and if the defendant raises a tenancy claim, the court can still proceed if the plaintiff's case is that the defendant is a licensee. (Paras 1-6) B) Rent Control - Tenant vs Licensee - Section 5(1)(c) Bombay Rent Act - Inheritance of tenancy - A grand-daughter claiming to be a member of the tenant's family and inheriting tenancy under Section 5(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act does not automatically oust the City Civil Court's jurisdiction if the plaintiff alleges that the defendant is a gratuitous licensee and not a tenant. The jurisdictional issue is to be decided on the basis of the plaint, not the defence. (Paras 2-5) C) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction - Plaint allegations - The court's jurisdiction is determined by the averments in the plaint, and if the plaint discloses a cause of action that is not exclusively triable by another court, the court has jurisdiction. The defendant's claim of tenancy does not divest the court of jurisdiction. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the City Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try a suit for possession against a person claiming to be a tenant under the Bombay Rent Act, or whether such suit is exclusively triable by the Small Causes Court.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The order of the City Civil Court dated 30th March 1994 is set aside. The suit is restored to the file of the City Civil Court for trial on merits. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of City Civil Court
- Gratuitous Licensee
- Bombay Rent Act
- Section 5(1)(c)
- Section 28
- Small Causes Court jurisdiction
- Licensee vs Tenant
