Section 41(1) of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Court of Small Causes for all suits and proceedings between a landlord and tenant relating to the recovery of possession of immovable property, including suits filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Headnote:
JURISDICTION - PRESIDENCY SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT, 1882 - SECTION 41 - SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY - WHETHER SUIT UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 IS COVERED BY SECTION 41 OF THE PRESIDENCY SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT, 1882 - HELD, YES.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking recovery of possession of immovable property from the defendants. The defendants raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that the suit was barred under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, which conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Court of Small Causes for suits and proceedings between a landlord and tenant relating to the recovery of possession of immovable property.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the suit was covered by Section 41(1) of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, and that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The court reasoned that the provisions of Section 41(1) were comprehensive and embraced all suits and proceedings between a landlord and tenant relating to the recovery of possession of immovable property, including suits filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Issues: Whether the suit for recovery of possession of immovable property under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, was covered by Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, which conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Court of Small Causes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 41(1) of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, as conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Court of Small Causes for all suits and proceedings between a landlord and tenant relating to the recovery of possession of immovable property, regardless of the specific cause of action or the relief sought. The court found that the suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, fell within this ambit, as it involved a dispute between a landlord and tenant over the possession of immovable property.
Final Decision: The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and ordered the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court under Order 7, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code.

JUDGMENT - D.N. MEHTA, J.:---The plaintiff has taken out this Notice of Motion dated the 19th of September, 1980 praying for the appointment of the Court receiver, High Court, as the suit premises i.e. Flat No. 202, Venus Appartments, 20th floor Twin Star Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Cuff Prande, Colaba, Bombay-5. The plaintiffs has further prayed for an Interim Order restraining the defendants from entering into or remaining upon or occupying the said premises in the Venus Apartments. The plaintiff has also prayed for the appointment of a Commissioners to take an inventory of the articles lying in the said premises in the Venus Apartments.

2. During the course of the arguments, Shri Mehta, learned Counsel for defendant No. 1 and Shri Thakkar, learned Counsel for defendants 2 and 3 raised an objection with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit. According to learned Counsel, in view of the provisions of section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1881 this Court cannot entertain this suit. I am, therefore, required to frame the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, pursuant to the provisions of section 9-A of the Civil Procedure Code and to try the same. Section 9-A(1) of the Civil Procedure Code provided :---

"Section 9-A(1).---Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code or any other law for the time being in force, if, at the hearing of any application for granting or setting aside an order granting any interim relief, whether by way of stay, injunction, appointment of a receiver or otherwise, made in any suit, an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain such suit is taken by any of the parties to the suit, the Court shall proceed to determine at the hearing of such application the issue as to the jurisdiction as a preliminary issue before granting or setting aside the order granting the interim relief. Any such application shall be heard and dispose of by the Court as expeditiously as possible and shall not in any case be adjourned to the hearing of the suit."

I have, therefore, framed the following issue :---

"Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the provisions of section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882."

3. Shri Thakkar, pointed out that under the provisions of amended section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 which was substituted for the original by the Maharashtra Act (XIX) of 1976, all suits and proceedings between a licensor and licensee and a landlord and a tenant relating to the licence fee or charges or rent therefore were triable exclusively by the Court of Small Causes. Shri Thakkar pointed out that the provisions of section 41(1) were pari materia with the provisions of section 28(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Act") save and except that in section 28 it was only in case a claim or question arose out of the Rent Act, in which case the suit was triable exclusively by the Court of Small Causes. However, under section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, no such reservation was made. Shri Thakkar, therefore, contended that the provisions of section 41 were wider in their implication then the provisions of section 28 of the Rent Act. The plaint wherein the plaintiff claimed to be a tenant of the defendants. The relevant passage relied upon by Shri Thakkar is the following :---

"The plaintiff submits that the real intention of the parties was to create a monthly tenancy in respect of the entire suit premises by putting the plaintiff in exclusive possession thereof on a monthly rent of Rs. 2500/-."

Shri Thakkar also pointed out a passage at paragraph 11 of the plaint where in the plaintiff stated that he was entitled to an order and decree against the defendants directing them to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to him. Shri Thakkar then drew my attention to the two prayers in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document