Case Note & Summary
The appellant (original defendant) challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court in a suit for possession filed by the respondent (original plaintiff). The plaintiff claimed that he had purchased a plot in Bidpeth, Nagpur in 1976 and constructed two kaccha rooms. He allowed the defendant, a distant relative, to use the premises temporarily for six months. After six months, when the plaintiff asked the defendant to vacate, the defendant refused, leading to the filing of Civil Suit No. 935 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree. In second appeal, the appellant raised the question of law whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit, given that the relationship between the parties was that of licensor and licensee, and under Section 26(2) of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, such suits are exclusively triable by the Small Causes Court. The High Court examined the plaint averments and found that the plaintiff had clearly stated that he allowed the defendant to use the premises temporarily for six months, which established a licensor-licensee relationship. The Court held that the non-obstante clause in Section 26(1) gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Small Causes Court over such suits, and the exception in Section 26(2) does not apply as no other special Act covered the premises. Therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the courts below, and dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction, leaving the plaintiff to seek remedy before the appropriate Small Causes Court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction - Licensor-Licensee Suit - Section 26(2) Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 - The suit between licensor and licensee for recovery of possession of immovable property is exclusively triable by the Small Causes Court, and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such suit - Held that the Courts below erred in assuming jurisdiction when the plaint averments clearly disclosed a licensor-licensee relationship (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Civil Court wrongly assumed jurisdiction to try the suit when the suit was filed on the basis of a relationship of licensor and licensee in view of the provisions of Section 26(2) of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of the trial court and first appellate court, and dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction. The plaintiff is at liberty to file a suit before the appropriate Small Causes Court.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Civil Court
- Licensor-Licensee Relationship
- Section 26 Provincial Small Causes Courts Act 1887
- Non-obstante Clause
- Exclusion of Civil Court Jurisdiction
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (04) 152
Second Appeal No. 389 of 2008
Mr N. K. Deshpande for appellant; None appears for respondent
Sudhakar son of Vithoba Dongre
Shripat son of Pandurang Lokhande
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against concurrent decrees for possession in a suit between licensor and licensee.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought dismissal of the suit on the ground that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction.
Filing Reason
The respondent (plaintiff) filed the suit for possession of two rooms after the appellant (defendant) refused to vacate after a temporary license period of six months.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur) decreed the suit; the first appellate court confirmed the decree.
Issues
Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit when the plaint averments disclosed a licensor-licensee relationship, in view of Section 26(2) of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the suit was between licensor and licensee for recovery of possession, and under Section 26 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, only the Small Causes Court has jurisdiction, not the Civil Court.
Respondent did not appear to argue.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 26(1) of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, suits between licensor and licensee for recovery of possession of immovable property are exclusively triable by the Small Causes Court, and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The exception under Section 26(2) does not apply as no other special Act covers the premises. Therefore, the Civil Court wrongly assumed jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 26 of the Act provides that suits or proceedings between licensors and licensees or landlords and tenants for recovery of possession of immovable property and licence fees or rent, except those to which other Acts apply, shall lie in Court of Small Causes.
The non obstante clause in subsection (1) of Section 26 of the Act provides that the Court of Small Causes shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try all suits and proceedings between a licensor and licensee, or a landlord and tenant, relating to the recovery of possession of any immovable property situated in the area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes.
Procedural History
The respondent (original plaintiff) filed Civil Suit No. 935 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur for possession of two rooms. The trial court decreed the suit. The appellant (original defendant) appealed to the first appellate court, which confirmed the decree. The appellant then filed Second Appeal No. 389 of 2008 in the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was admitted on 19.11.2008 on the question of law regarding jurisdiction. The High Court heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 07.04.2014.
Acts & Sections
- Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887: Section 26, Section 26(1), Section 26(2)
