The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, Section 41, confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Presidency Small Cause Court at Bombay to try suits between a licensor and licensee relating to the possession of immovable property situate in Greater Bombay, including suits for damages for trespass, compensation for wrongful use and occupation, and mesne profits.

Headnote:
PRESIDENCY SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT - SECTION 41 - JURISDICTION OF SMALL CAUSE COURT - SUITS BETWEEN LICENSOR AND LICENSEE - RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, the monthly tenant of a flat, granted leave and license to the defendant to occupy the flat. After the expiry of the license period, a fresh agreement was entered into, renewing the license for a further period. Upon the expiry of the second agreement, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that the defendant was a trespasser, a mandatory injunction to direct the defendant to vacate the flat, and damages for trespass and wrongful occupation.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, Section 41, conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Presidency Small Cause Court at Bombay to try suits between a licensor and licensee relating to the possession of immovable property situate in Greater Bombay, and that this jurisdiction included suits for damages for trespass, compensation for wrongful use and occupation, and mesne profits.
Issues: 1. Whether the Presidency Small Cause Court at Bombay had exclusive jurisdiction to try suits between a licensor and licensee relating to the possession of immovable property situate in Greater Bombay. 2. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was a suit for the recovery of possession of immovable property or a suit for a declaration and injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act as conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Presidency Small Cause Court at Bombay to try suits between a licensor and licensee relating to the possession of immovable property situate in Greater Bombay, irrespective of the value of the subject matter of such suits. 2. The court held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was in substance a suit for the recovery of possession of immovable property, despite being framed as a suit for a declaration and injunction, as the real relief sought was a decree for possession.
Final Decision: The court held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and ordered the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff to be presented to the Presidency Small Cause Court at Bombay.

JUDGMENT - D.P. MADON, J.:---The question with respect to this Courts jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit file on the Original Side has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this High Court and now comes before us for our determination.

2. The plaintiffs is the monthly tenant of a flat on the ground floor of a building belonging to Ashok Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited situate at 10th North-South Road, Juhu--Vile Parle Development Scheme, Bombay 400 056. By an agreement dated June 20, 1968 the plaintiff granted to the defendant leave and licence to occupy the said flat upon terms and conditions contained in the said agreement. The said licence was for a period of 11 months commencing from June 15, 1968 and the licence fee mentioned therein was a sum of Rs. 400 per month. By Clause 14 of the said agreement the defendant covenanted that on the termination of the said licence he would remove himself quietly and peacefully along with this family members and his servants and agents and their furniture and fixtures and would give vacant possession of the said premises to the plaintiff. On the expiry of the period of the said agreement a fresh agreement was arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant on July 4, 1969 under which the said licence was renewed for a further period 11 months from July 1, 1969 upon the same terms on conditions, except that the monthly licence fee was reduced to Rs. 375. The said second agreement by efflux of time on May 31, 1970.

3. On April 14, 1978 the plaintiff through his Advocates called upon the defendant to remove himself from the said flat. By this Advocates reply dated May 17, 1978 the defendant alleged that before the expiry of the said second agreement in or about January 1970 an oral agreement was arrived at between the plaintiffs and the defendant under which it was agreed that the defendant would continue as a licensee for so long as he desired and that the said licence was subsisting on February 1, 1973, on which date by reasons of the amendment of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates control Act, 1947, by the Mah. Act XVII of 1973, the defendant became a protected licence within the meaning of the said Act.

4. The plaintiffs thereupon filed the present suit. After setting out the said two agreements the plaintiff averred as follows :

"The plaintiff says and submits that the leave and licence granted to the defendant came to an end by the efflux of time of time as stated herein above. The plaintiff, therefore, says and submits that the defendants occupation of the said premises since then has been and is wrongful and illegal, and is that of a trespasser......... The plaintiff says and submits that he is entitled to recover vacant possession of the said flat from the defendant as the defendant has no right of any nature whatsoever to remain in use and occupation of the same."

Prayer (a) of the plaint is for a declaration that the defendant was a trespasser upon and in respect of the said flat and that he has no right, title or interest to remain or continue to remain in use and occupation or possession thereof. Prayer (b) of the plaint is for a mandatory injunction to direct the defendant to forthwith remove himself, his servant and agents, together with his belongings, from the said flat and to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the said flat to the plaintiff. Prayer (c) of the plaint is for a sum of Rs. 35,625 claimed by way of damages from June 1, 1970 till the date of the filling of the suit at the rate of Rs. 375 per month. Prayer (d) of the plaint for a sum of Rs. 375 per month or such other sum as the Court may think fit by way of future mesne profits or damages or compensation for wrongful use and occupation of the said flat from the date of the filing of the suit till vacant and peaceful possession of the said flat is handed over to the plaintiff.

5. After the filling of the suit, the plaintiff took out a notice of mo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document