Case Note & Summary
The present Civil Revision Application was filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), the applicant, challenging the order of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai dismissing its application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The respondent, Abhishek Vasant Chavan, had filed R.A.D. Suit No. 660 of 2012 in the Small Causes Court under the Rent Control Act seeking a declaration that he is a tenant in respect of Room No.12, Building No. 160, 1st Floor, East and West Willa, Grant Road (West), Mumbai, and that the defendants (LIC) have no right to dispossess him without due process of law. The suit premises are owned by LIC and are public premises under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (Act of 1971). LIC filed an application under Section 9A of the CPC challenging the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court, which was later directed by the High Court to be treated as an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. LIC also initiated eviction proceedings under the Act of 1971 before the Estate Officer, who passed an eviction order on 20 January 2015. The respondent challenged that order in Misc. Appeal No. 13 of 2013 before the City Civil Court, which allowed the appeal, and LIC's writ petition against that order is pending. The Small Causes Court dismissed LIC's application under Order VII Rule 11(d), holding that the civil court's jurisdiction is not barred under the Rent Control Act or by Section 15 of the Act of 1971. Aggrieved, LIC filed the present revision. The High Court examined the scope of Order VII Rule 11(d) and Section 15 of the Act of 1971. It held that the bar under Section 15 applies only to proceedings for eviction of unauthorised occupants under the Act, and not to suits for declaration of tenancy where the plaintiff claims to be a tenant and disputes the applicability of the Act. The court noted that the respondent's suit seeks a declaration of tenancy, which is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court under the Rent Control Act. The court further held that the question of whether the premises are public premises and whether the Act of 1971 applies is a mixed question of fact and law that cannot be decided at the stage of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d). The court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the order of the Small Causes Court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC - Jurisdictional Bar - The court considered whether the plaint should be rejected as barred by law under Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The court held that the bar under Section 15 applies only when the premises are indisputably public premises and the Act applies. Where the plaintiff disputes the applicability of the Act and seeks a declaration of tenancy, the civil court has jurisdiction to decide the issue. (Paras 1-10) B) Rent Control - Jurisdiction of Small Causes Court - Maharashtra Rent Control Act - Public Premises - The court examined whether the Small Causes Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for declaration of tenancy in respect of premises owned by LIC, which are public premises under the 1971 Act. The court held that the Small Causes Court has jurisdiction to decide the issue of tenancy and the applicability of the Rent Control Act, and the suit is not barred by Section 15 of the 1971 Act. (Paras 3-12) C) Public Premises - Bar of Jurisdiction - Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - The court interpreted Section 15 and held that the bar applies only to proceedings for eviction of unauthorised occupants under the Act, and not to suits for declaration of tenancy where the plaintiff claims to be a tenant and disputes the applicability of the Act. The court relied on the principle that the jurisdiction of civil courts is not ousted unless expressly barred. (Paras 8-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Small Causes Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for declaration of tenancy in respect of public premises covered under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, and whether the suit is barred by Section 15 of the said Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the order of the Small Causes Court. The court held that the Small Causes Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit for declaration of tenancy, and the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) was rightly rejected. The court clarified that the bar under Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 does not apply to suits for declaration of tenancy where the plaintiff disputes the applicability of the Act.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC
- Section 9A CPC
- Section 15 Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971
- jurisdiction of civil court
- bar of jurisdiction
- public premises
- tenancy declaration
