Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Blaze Fernandes, filed a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 CPC challenging the order dated 08.03.2018 of the Civil Judge Junior Division, Panaji, dismissing his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. The respondents, Dr. Joaquim Herlander Coelho Pereira and others, had filed a suit claiming that the applicant was in illegal possession of a commercial shop and sought mesne profits. The applicant contended that he was a tenant of the premises, having inherited the tenancy from his father, and that the suit was barred by the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968. The Trial Court had earlier allowed the applicant's application under Section 18 of the Act for deposit of rent and dismissed the respondents' application under Order XV-A CPC for mesne profits, which orders were not challenged. The Trial Court dismissed the Order VII Rule 11 application on the ground that the applicant had not produced documents to establish his tenancy. The High Court, after hearing arguments, held that the Trial Court's reasoning was flawed as the plaint itself disclosed a tenancy claim, but the plaint was not barred by law and the suit could proceed. The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, finding no merit in the applicant's challenge.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Tenancy Claim - The applicant sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by law due to the existence of a tenancy relationship. The Trial Court dismissed the application holding that the applicant had not produced documents to establish his tenancy. The High Court held that the Trial Court's reasoning was erroneous as the plaint itself disclosed a tenancy claim and the applicant's application under Section 18 of the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 had been granted, which was not challenged. However, the High Court found that the plaint was not barred by law and the suit could proceed. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the applicant had not produced documents to establish his tenancy claim.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the Trial Court's order dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Rejection of Plaint
- Tenancy
- Goa Buildings (Lease
- Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1968
- Section 18
- Mesne Profits
- Order XV-A CPC
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (10) 142
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.25 OF 2018
Shri F. E. Noronha for Applicant, Shri J. Godinho for Respondents
Dr. Joaquim Herlander Coelho Pereira, Dr. Luis Amandio Coelho Pereira, Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Revision Application challenging dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint.
Remedy Sought
Applicant sought to quash and set aside the order of the Trial Court dismissing his application for rejection of the plaint.
Filing Reason
Applicant claimed that the suit was barred by law due to his tenancy rights under the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court allowed applicant's application under Section 18 of the Goa Buildings Act for deposit of rent and dismissed respondents' application under Order XV-A CPC for mesne profits; these orders were not challenged.
Issues
Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint.
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant argued that commercial tenancy is heritable and the respondents' blanket statement that he was a trespasser could not supersede settled law.
Respondents argued that the applicant had not produced documents to establish his tenancy claim.
Ratio Decidendi
The plaint is not barred by law merely because the defendant claims tenancy; the suit can proceed and the tenancy issue can be decided on merits.
Judgment Excerpts
The applicant seeks a writ to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division Panaji dated 08.03.2018 pursuant to which the application moved by the applicant for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code came to be dismissed.
The learned Trial Court had erroneously dismissed the application moved by him under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground that only if the applicant had produced any documents to establish his claim of tenancy to the suit premises, the suit would have been barred by law.
Procedural History
The respondents filed a suit for mesne profits. The applicant filed an application under Section 18 of the Goa Buildings Act for deposit of rent, which was allowed. The respondents' application under Order XV-A CPC was dismissed. The applicant then filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, which was dismissed by the Trial Court on 08.03.2018. The applicant filed the present Civil Revision Application challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order VII Rule 11, Order XV-A, Section 115
- Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968: Section 18
