The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of possession of tenanted premises based on the claim of tenancy is governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, specifically section 33.

JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---Heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and for the respondent No. 2.

2. The appellant challenges the order dated 13-3-2002 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai answering the preliminary issue regarding the lack of jurisdiction to the City Civil Court to entertain the suit, in affirmative and, therefore, directing return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.

3. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and perusal of the record, it is seen that the appellant has filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground that the original tenant in relation to the suit premises had surrendered his tenancy in relation to the suit premises on 20th July, 1998 and on the very day the premises were leased out to the appellant by the landlord-respondent No. 2 herein; however, the suit premises were occupied by the respondent No. 1 from 22nd September, 2000 onwards and when the appellant enquired about the same with the respondents and particularly with the respondent No. 2 the landlord, it was informed to the appellant that respondent No. 1 has rightly obtained the possession of the suit premises and if the appellant wants to take it back, then he should make arrangement for premium of Rs. 7 lacs within a week's time failing which the transaction with the third party would be completed. The suit is apparently filed for recovery of possession of the suit premises based on claim of tenancy. The trial Court, therefore, referring to section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 held that the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such suit and ordered the return of the plaint by the impugned order.

4. Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 provides that when the suit premises are situated within the territorial jurisdiction comprised of Brihanmumbai, the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try an suit or proceeding between the landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises and to decide any application made under the said Act, other than the applications which are to be decided by the State Government or an officer authorised by it or the Competent Authority and subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 33, no other Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any such suit, proceeding or application or deal with such claim or question.

5. Placing reliance upon the decision of this Court in the matters of (Faijulbee Hajeel and others v. Yadali Amir Shaikh Ansari)1, reported in 1984(2) Bom.C.R. 253, (Eknath Vithal Ogale v. Mansukhlal Dhanraj Jain and others)2, reported in 1988(2) Bom.C.R. 9 and of the Apex Court in the matter of (Somnath Berman v. Dr. S.P. Raju and another)3, reported in A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 846, the learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the issue of tenancy being not in dispute and it is merely a matter of recovery of possession, the City Civil Court will have jurisdiction in the same manner as it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act or the suit for injunction. It was also further submitted that the pleadings of the parties are to be liberally construed and merely because the appellant has stated in the plaint that the suit is filed based on title that would not disentitle the appellant from claiming relief in terms of section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

6. This Court in Faijulbee Hajeel's case (supra) has held that "the suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act which is based on the allegation of dispossession and which is for recovery of possession of immoveable property continues to be within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court despite the fact that the parties may happen to be fulfilling the character of a landlord or a tenant or a licensor or a licensee. The question of the title of the parties including the title of a tenant does not arise in such case and will natur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document