JUDGMENT - T.D. SUGLA, J.:---The petitioners-original defendants have challenged the impugned judgment dated 9th July, 1987 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Bombay. The respondent-original plaintiff-had filed a suit in the Small Causes Court, Bombay being R.A. Declaratory Suit No. 3623 of 1982. He also took out Injunction Notice No. 3102 of 1983 inter alia for mandatory injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and/or agents from keeping the dogs in common passage outside the suit premises, i.e., Room No. 5 on the 2nd floor of Kennedy House, Gamdevi, Bombay 400 007 or any part of the passage leading to the suit premises or leading to the common lavatory on the 2nd floor etc. This was resisted by the petitioners herein on the ground that the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to decide such an issue. By his aforesaid impugned order the Judge, Small Causes Court held that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit under section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act and directed the injunction to proceed on merits.

2. It is against this order that the petitioners (original defendants) have come up before this Court by way of revision application. Shri Phadkar and Shri Purohit, the learned. Counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterated that the Small Causes Court did not have jurisdiction to proceed with the injunction notice on merits. In this context they referred to the provisions of sections 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 for the purpose of showing that the special Court i.e., Small Causes Court had a limited jurisdiction as regards suits or proceedings between a landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises to which any of the provisions of this Act apply. Since the injunction sought for had no direct nexus with the recovery of rent or with the possession of the premises the Small Causes Court did not have jurisdiction to proceed with the injunction notice. In response to a query from the Bench, Shri Phadkar fairly stated that it is not as if the respondent was remediless. The respondent, if he felt aggrieved, could approach the City Civil Court or a Criminal Court for the purpose. Strong reliance in this behalf was placed on a Single Judge's judgment of this Court in the case of (Omprakash Tulsiram and others v. M/s. H.J. Leach and Co.)1, 1988(4) Bom.C.R. 97. It was pointed out that in that case a suit was filed by a tenant against the landlord for restraining the landlord from causing obstruction to his right of way leading to the tenant's premises by dumping heavy material on the passage. It was held that the Small Causes Court did not have jurisdiction and that the suit could be filed before the City Civil Court.

3. The respondent who is an Advocate appeared in person. He stated that the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners are not tenable and have been rightly rejected by the trial Court. In this context he pointed out that the learned Counsel for the petitioners have given a limited and restricted meaning to the expression "relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises" used in section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. For this purpose he placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of (Dattatray Krishna Jangam v. Jairam Ganesh Gore)2, A.I.R. 1965 Bombay 177. It was stated that the expression used in section 28 is "relating to" which is much wider than the expression "simply recovery of rent or possession".

4. I have carefully gone through section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 as well as the Full Bench judgment and the Single Judge's judgment of 1965 and 1989 respectively of this Court. It is true that in 1989 Mh.L.J. 51 the learned Single Judge has held that a mere interference with the access amounting to interference with the right to quiet enjoyment but without any element relating to recovery of possession cannot be considered as a claim or question arising out of possession cannot be considered as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document