Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (defendant), challenged the judgment and decree dated 30th January, 2002 passed by the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai in T.E. & R Suit No.131/163 of 2000 and the appellate judgment dated 17th September, 2003 in Appeal No.344 of 2002. The courts below had decreed the suit filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) for eviction and vacant possession of a piece of land admeasuring 437.24 square yards bearing C.S. No.653 final Plot No.88 (1), T.P.S. No.II, Mahim Division, situated at the junction of Cadell Road and Lady Hardinge Road, Mahim (West), Mumbai. The trial court also ordered an inquiry into mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, directing the defendant to pay mesne profits from 1st August, 2000 till handing over vacant possession. The defendant filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The defendant argued that the Small Causes Court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiffs did not admit the defendant's tenancy, that Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 was arbitrary and violative of Article 14, that plaintiff No.1 was not a registered partnership firm, and that the termination notices were invalid. The plaintiffs supported the concurrent findings, contending that the evidence established the registration of the firm and valid termination of tenancy. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found no error in the concurrent findings of fact and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction decree and mesne profits inquiry.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction of Small Causes Court - Section 41 of Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 - The Court held that the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction as the defendant was a tenant and the tenancy was validly terminated. The concurrent findings of the courts below on jurisdiction were upheld. (Paras 2-4) B) Rent Control - Applicability of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 3(1)(b) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The Court rejected the challenge to the validity of Section 3(1)(b) as arbitrary and discriminatory, holding that the provision was not ineffective. The defendant's contention that the Act did not apply was not accepted. (Para 3) C) Partnership - Registration of Firm - The Court upheld the concurrent finding that plaintiff No.1 was a registered partnership firm, based on evidence on record. (Para 4) D) Tenancy - Termination of Tenancy - Validity of Notices - The Court affirmed the concurrent findings that the notices dated 18th August, 1995 and 30th May, 2000 were valid and legally terminated the tenancy. (Paras 3-4) E) Mesne Profits - Inquiry Under Order XX Rule 12 CPC - The Court upheld the direction for mesne profits inquiry from 1st August, 2000 till delivery of possession, as per Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to entertain the eviction suit; whether the termination of tenancy was valid; whether the plaintiff firm was duly registered; and whether the impugned judgments suffered from any error warranting interference under Article 227.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the judgments and decrees of the courts below. The eviction decree and mesne profits inquiry were confirmed.
Law Points
- Section 41 of Presidency Small Causes Courts Act
- 1882
- Section 3(1)(b) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Order XX Rule 12 of Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
