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 respondents, M/s. ACME Constructions Corporation & Ors. (plaintiffs), had instituted the suit for eviction and mesne profits in respect 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 decreed the suit directing the defendant to deliver vacant possession within six months and ordered an inquiry into mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 from 1st August, 2000 till handing over possession. The appellate bench confirmed the decree. 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 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 was not applicable, that Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 was arbitrary and violative of Article 14, and that plaintiff No.1 was not a registered partnership firm. The plaintiffs supported the concurrent findings that plaintiff No.1 was a registered firm and that the tenancy was validly terminated by notices dated 18th August, 1995 and 30th May, 2000. The High Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition, holding that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and that no interference was warranted under Article 227. The court upheld the concurrent findings on jurisdiction, validity of notices, and registration of the firm, and confirmed the decree for possession and mesne profits.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Jurisdiction - Section 41 Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 - Section 3(1)(b) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The Small Causes Court has jurisdiction to entertain eviction suits even if the tenant disputes the tenancy, as the court's jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the suit and the relationship of landlord and tenant. The court held that the provisions of Section 41 of the P.S.C.C. Act are applicable and the suit was properly filed. (Paras 2-4) B) Partnership - Registration - Plaintiff No.1 was a registered partnership firm - The courts below concurrently found that plaintiff No.1 was a registered partnership firm based on evidence, and this finding was not interfered with under Article 227. (Para 4) C) Tenancy - Termination - Validity of notices - The notices dated 18th August, 1995 and 30th May, 2000 were held valid by the courts below, and the High Court found no error in the concurrent findings. (Para 4) D) Mesne Profits - Order XX Rule 12 CPC - The courts below ordered an inquiry into mesne profits from 1st August, 2000 till delivery of possession, which was upheld. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction and whether the termination of tenancy was valid.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the judgments and decrees of the courts below. The defendant was directed to deliver vacant possession of the suit property and pay mesne profits as ordered.
Law Points
- Section 41 Presidency Small Causes Courts Act
- 1882
- Section 3(1)(b) Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Article 227 Constitution of India
- Order XX Rule 12 CPC
- Tenancy termination
- Mesne profits
- Partnership registration
