The Small Causes Court has exclusive jurisdiction not only to hear the present suit but also to decide any application made therein.

Headnote:
A leave and licence agreement dated 4th July, 1969 was entered into between the petitioner/plaintiff and the respondent. The petitioner granted to the respondent a licence to use and occupy the suit flat on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. On 4th May, 1999, the petitioner filed the said R.A.E. suit which it now seeks to withdraw. Defendant No. 2 to the suit is one Harvinder Bhatia. The plaintiff alleged that defendant No. 1 i.e. the respondent unlawfully sub-let, gave on licence or parted with the possession of the flat to defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 is not joined as a party respondent. The suit proceeds on a concession that the respondent is a protected licensee or a deemed tenant pursuant to the amendment to the Bombay Rent Act. Under section 15(A) of the Bombay Rent Act any person who was in occupation of any premises on 1st February, 1973 as a licensee shall be deemed to have become a tenant of the landlord in respect of such premises. The concession was despite the petitioner's case that there was no subsisting licence in favour of the respondent. The suit therefore is clearly under the Bombay Rent Act and not under the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act. The petitioner's application under Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. for unconditional withdrawal of the suit was made under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act, read with the Bombay Rent Control Rules. Analysing section 28(1) of the Bombay Rent Act, it is clear that while exercising jurisdiction to entertain any try a suit between a landlord and a tenant relating to recovery of rent or possession of any premises to which the provisions of Part II of the Bombay Rent Act apply, the Court of Small Causes is entitled to decide any application made under the Bombay Rent Act and to deal with any questions arising out of the Bombay Rent Act or any of its provision. The Small Causes Court is conferred exclusive jurisdiction to hear suits and proceedings that fall within the ambit of section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act. While deciding such suits, it is required by that Stature (Rule 8) to follow the procedure and practice prescribed in another statute viz. the C.P.C. But from that it can hardly be said that an application made in accordance with such provision falls not under the Bombay Rent Act but exclusively under such other statute. To so hold would reduce the Bombay Rent Act unworkable and meaningless. Thus the small Causes Court has exclusive jurisdiction not only to hear the present suit but also to decide any application made therein. This view is supported by the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in (Hemchand v. Subhkaram)2, A.I.R. 1967 Bom. 361 (paragraph 9) which I shall refer to subsequently.

JUDGMENT - VAZIFDAR S.J., J.: - The civil revision application impugns the order of a learned Single Judge of the Small Causes Court at Bombay, rejecting the petitioner's application for the unconditional withdrawal of R.A.E. Suit No. 503/952 of 1999 filed by it against the respondent and another defendant.

2.Mr. Jagtiani submitted that the impugned order is not capable of being revised by the Small Causes Court. The question of law that therefore falls for consideration is whether an order rejecting an application to withdraw a suit unconditionally is capable of being revised by the Small Causes Court under section 29(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "The Bombay Rent Act"). I have come to the conclusion that it does. A consideration of this question necessitates a consideration of a question of law of general importance. It is, whether, as contended by Mr. Jagtiani, only those orders that relate to recovery of possession, or rent or fixation of standard rent for which the Bombay Rent Act was enacted are revisable under section 29(3).

3.It is true that even assuming that the impugned order is capable of being revised by the Small Causes Court, it will in no way affect this Court's jurisdiction to entertain and deal with it under its revisional power under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However in the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not think it appropriate to entertain the present civil revision application in exercise of my discretion under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4.As I have decided to reject this civil revision application on this preliminary issue, I will state the facts leading to the civil revision application without going into the merits of the disputes between the parties.

5.A leave and licence agreement dated 4th July, 1969 was entered into between the petitioner/plaintiff ad the respondent. The petitioner granted to the respondent a licence to use and occupy the suit flat on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. On 4th May, 1999, the petitioner filed the said R.A.E. suit which it now seeks to withdraw. Defendant No. 2 to the suit is one Harvinder Bhatia. The plaintiff alleged that defendant No. 1 i.e. the respondent unlawfully sub-let, gave on licence or parted with the possession of the flat to defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 is not joined as a party respondent.

6.The plaint proceeds on a concession that the respondent is a protected licensee or a deemed tenant pursuant to the amendment to the Bombay Rent Act. Under section 15(A) of the Bombay Rent Act any person who was in occupation of any premises on 1st February, 1973 as a licensee shall be deemed to have become a tenant of the landlord in respect of such premises. The concession was despite the petitioner's case that there was no subsisting licence in favour of the respondent. The suit therefore is clearly under the Bombay Rent Act and not under the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act. I will come to the significance of this later.

7.Let me summarise the petitioner's case from the date the suit was filed to the filing of the application which is the subject-matter of the present proceedings. From October, 2000, the suit flat had been lying vacant. On 31st March, 2001 some miscreants attempted to break into the suit flat which had been lying vacant and the petitioner therefore sought the intervention of the police. The miscreants appeared to have duplicate keys. The petitioner therefore changed the lock of the main entrance and advised the respondent to collect the duplicate key. The respondent did not respond to the letter. As there had been no response from the respondent, the flat had been lying vacant and as no offer of rent of compensation was made by the respondent, the petitioner returned the flat to its owner one Nikhil Bhatia, who apparently inherited the flat from his grand-father one S.B. Prakash.

8.On 17th July, 2001, the respondent fil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis