Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, M/s. Kwality Rubber Works and others, were tenants of a godown located at Vadkun, Dahanu. The respondent landlord filed Regular Civil Suit No. 46 of 1999 on 7 June 1999 seeking eviction on grounds of non-payment of rent, damage to premises, and bonafide personal requirement. At the time of filing, the suit premises were not covered by the Bombay Rent Act. However, the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 came into force on 31 March 2000 and applied to the whole of Maharashtra. The suit premises fell within the area of Dahanu Municipal Council, which was specified in Schedule I of the Rent Act. Consequently, the petitioners filed an application at Exhibit 46 objecting to the continuance of the suit in the Civil Court, arguing that the Rent Act now applied and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dahanu rejected the application on 1 December 2007, holding that the Rent Act did not apply to the suit premises as they were not let for residence, education, business, trade or storage. The petitioners challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 2(1) of the Rent Act, which states that the Act applies to premises let for residence, education, business, trade or storage in areas specified in Schedules I and II. The court noted that the suit premises were godowns used for storage, and Schedule I included Dahanu Municipal Council. Therefore, the Rent Act applied to the suit premises from its commencement. The court held that once the Rent Act became applicable, the Civil Court lost jurisdiction to entertain the eviction suit, and the proceedings should be transferred to the appropriate Rent Court. The impugned order was set aside, and the Civil Court was directed to transfer the suit to the Rent Court having jurisdiction.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Applicability of Rent Act - Section 2(1) and Schedule I of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The suit premises located at Vadkun, Dahanu fell within the area of Dahanu Municipal Council specified in Schedule I, hence the Rent Act applied from its commencement on 31 March 2000 - The Civil Court lost jurisdiction to entertain the eviction suit after the Rent Act became applicable, as the Act provides for exclusive jurisdiction of Rent Courts - Held that the application objecting to continuance of proceedings ought to have been allowed (Paras 1-10). B) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Bar under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Once the Rent Act applies, the Civil Court cannot proceed with eviction suits even if filed prior to the Act's commencement - The suit must be transferred to the appropriate Rent Court - Held that the impugned order rejecting the application was erroneous and set aside (Paras 11-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Civil Court could continue to entertain the eviction suit after the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 became applicable to the suit premises, and whether the application objecting to the continuance of proceedings was rightly rejected.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 1 December 2007, and directed the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dahanu to transfer Regular Civil Suit No. 46 of 1999 to the Rent Court having jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Law Points
- Applicability of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999 to suit premises
- Bar on jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain eviction suits in areas covered by Rent Act
- Effect of subsequent enactment on pending suits
- Interpretation of Section 2(1) and Schedule I of Rent Act
