The Court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction to entertain and try an ejectment application under section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, if the annual rack rent of the suit premises exceeds Rs. 3,000/-, even if the said section is subsequently amended to enlarge the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes.

Headnote:
SMALL CAUSE COURT - JURISDICTION - EJECTMENT APPLICATION - RACK RENT - AMENDMENT OF SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT - INTERPRETATION - SECTION 41, 42, 43, 45, 46 - PRESIDENCY SMALL CAUSE COURTS (MAHARASHTRA AMENDMENT) ACT, 1976 - MAHARASHTRA CIVIL COURTS (ENHANCEMENT OF PECUNIARY JURISDICTION AND AMENDMENT) ACT, 1977 - SECTION 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 - BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT, 1947 - SECTION 15-A - BOMBAY GOVERNMENT PREMISES (EVICTION) ACT, 1955 - BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT - BOMBAY HOUSING BOARD ACT, 1948 - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - SECTION 11 - Where the annual rack rent of the suit premises was more than Rs. 3,000/-, the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to entertain and try an ejectment application under section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, as it stood before the amendment of 1976, even though the said section was subsequently amended by the Presidency Small Cause Courts (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1976, to enlarge the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was occupying a flat owned by the respondents under a leave and license agreement. The respondents terminated the license and filed an ejectment application under section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes on the ground that the annual rack rent of the suit premises was more than Rs. 3,000/-. The Court of Small Causes rejected the petitioner's contention and passed an order of ejectment. The petitioner filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Court of Small Causes.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the ejectment application because the annual rack rent of the suit premises was more than Rs. 3,000/-. The Court further held that the amendments made to section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act by the Presidency Small Cause Courts (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1976, and the Maharashtra Civil Courts (Enhancement of Pecuniary Jurisdiction and Amendment) Act, 1977, did not affect the maintainability of the ejectment application, which was incompetent ab initio.
Issues: 1. Whether the Court of Small Causes had jurisdiction to entertain and try the ejectment application. 2. Whether the amendments made to section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act by the Presidency Small Cause Courts (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1976, and the Maharashtra Civil Courts (Enhancement of Pecuniary Jurisdiction and Amendment) Act, 1977, affected the maintainability of the ejectment application.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the ejectment application because the annual rack rent of the suit premises was more than Rs. 3,000/-. The Court relied on the plain language of section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, which provided that the Court of Small Causes had jurisdiction to entertain and try ejectment applications only if the annual rack rent of the suit premises did not exceed Rs. 3,000/-. 2. The Court held that the amendments made to section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act by the Presidency Small Cause Courts (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1976, and the Maharashtra Civil Courts (Enhancement of Pecuniary Jurisdiction and Amendment) Act, 1977, did not affect the maintainability of the ejectment application, which was incompetent ab initio. The Court relied on the provisions of section 46(2) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1976, which provided that all applications pending in the Court of Small Causes under Chapter VII of the Act before the coming into force of the Act were to be disposed of as if the Act had not been passed.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and set aside the order of ejectment passed by the Court of Small Causes.

JUDGMENT - R.A. JAHAGIRDAR, J.:---This petition seeks to challenge an order passed by the Court of Small Cause at Bombay in an ejectment application, being Application No. 357/E on 1973, as being without jurisdiction. The impugned order has been passed on 12th July, 1979, though the application had been filed in the year 1973. The gap between the date when the application was filed and the date of the order is only partly explained by the fact of the usual delay in the disposal of cases. There were other proceedings between the parties, whom I will now shortly proceed to describe, and this fact is also part of the cause of the delay in the passing of the final order.

2. The petitioner is occupying a flat, being Flat No. 10-A in Maitri Vijaya Co-operative Housing Society at Chembur, a suburb of Bombay. That flat is owned by the two respondents in this petition. On 15th June, 1971, there was what has been characterised as a leave and licence agreement between the petitioner and the respondents under which the petitioner was permitted to occupy the flat, hereinafter referred to as the suit premises. The rent agreed to be paid by the petitioner was Rs. 500/- per month. It has been mentioned that apart from the suit premises, the petitioner was entitled to use a garage. The leave and licence agreement was renewed subsequently on 15th of May, 1972 for a further period of eleven months. Subsequently the respondents, by a notice dated 2nd July, 1973, terminated the licence of the petitioner and on 9th of July, 1973 filed an ejectment application under section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 in its application to the State of Maharashtra. The final order that is passed in this applications the subject matter of challenge in this petition. Before considering that challenge, I must briefly narrate certain other parallel proceedings which took place between the parties.

3. On 10th of July, 1973, the petitioner filed a declaratory suit under section 28 of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act, for a declaration that he is a protected licensee and thus a tenant under section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Act. This suit was numbered as Declaratory Suit No. 4328 of 1973. The petitioner also on the same day filed an application, being R.A.N. Application No. 739/SE of 1973, for fixation of the standard rent of the suit premises. All these three cases, namely the two applications and one suit, were tried together by the Court of Small Cause and were disposed of on 18th of October, 1978. The declaratory suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed; the preliminary issue regarding the tenancy of the petitioner raised on his contention in the ejectment application was answered in the negative; the standard rent application also came to be dismissed. Shortly, the petitioner failed in the three proceedings.

4. On 13th of February, 1979, the petitioner preferred an appeal, being Appeal No. 250 of 1979, against the decision in the declaratory suit; he filed an appeal being Appeal No. 115 of 1976, against the finding of the Court on the preliminary issue regarding the tenancy; he also preferred a revision application, being Application No. 85 of 1979, against the order dismissing his application for the fixation of standard rent. In Appeal No. 115 of 1979, the petitioner was asked to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month within a particular time. Stay of the further proceedings in the ejectment application was granted subject to the condition that the petitioner paid the arrears of rent at the rate mentioned by the Court within a particular time. Admittedly there was no compliance on the part of the petitioner with this condition. They stay, therefore, became ineffective and thereafter further proceedings were taken up by the Court in ejectment application. When the Court of Small Cause took up the ejectment application for final decision two issue

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1979 Supreme(Bom) 234

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYR.A. Jahagirdar, J.Shantiswaroop Krishnalal Mahesh.... Petitioner.VersusLaxmanrao Venkatrao Kapse another.... Respondents.Writ Petition No. 2413 of 1979, decided on 7-11-1979.Advocates appeared :S.H. Kapadia, for petitioner. M.A. Rane, with S.J. Deshpande, for respondent.