The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded under Section 149 of the MRTP Act when challenging orders or notices issued under the Act.

( 1 ) THE appellant ("the plaintiff, for convenience) has challenged in this appeal Judgment and Order dated 5th february, 2005 passed by the City Civil Court at Mumbai in Long Cause Suit No. 90 of 2005.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 ("defendant no. 1", for convenience) is the Municipal corporation of Greater Bombay. Respondent no. 2 ("defendant No. 2, for convenience) is the landlord.

( 3 ) THE suit was filed praying for a declaration that the notice issued by defendant no. 1 under Section 55 (1) of the Maharashtra regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ("the mrtp Act", for convenience) dated 15th december, 2004 is bad in law, void ab initio and not enforceable. The plaintiff had also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from taking any action of demolishing the suit premises, i. e. , a structure admeasuring 17'4 x 8'9 and 9' x 5'4 situate at Rita Building Compound, Telli Galli, Shahu maharaj Road, Mumbai-400 093 (suit structure, for short ).

( 4 ) IN short, the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is employed as sweeper for the last about 25 to 30 years by defendant no. 2. She was allowed to occupy the suit premises as a tenant. Her monthly remuneration was Rs. 200/- after deducting the rent amount, including the water and electricity charges. The impugned notice issued under Section 55 (1) of the MRTP Act directed the plaintiff to vacate the suit structure within 15 days from the receipt thereof; and hence, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit.

( 5 ) AT the trial, defendant No. 1 filed affidavit-in-reply, contending therein, inter alia, that a suit challenging the notice issued under section 55 (1) of the MRTP Act is no maintainable in view of Section 149 thereof.

( 6 ) DEFENDANT No. 2 also filed affidavit-in-reply in which he, inter alia. contended that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2, and the suit suffered from non-joinder and misjoinder of parties. Defendant No. 2 also contended that the City Civil Court had not jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

( 7 ) AS the point of jurisdiction was raised, the trial court framed the necessary issue as regards jurisdiction. The plaintiff led her evidence. Defendant No. 2 cross-examined her. Defendant No. l did not cross-examine the witness. After perusing the evidence on record, the trial court held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The suit was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and hence, this appeal.

( 8 ) 1 have heard at some length mrs. Nutan S. Moily, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff. The learned counsel contended that exclusion of civil court's jurisdiction cannot be readily inferred. She submitted that the MRTP Act makes no provision under which a notice issued under Section 55 (1) of the said Act can be challenged. Absence of provision for adequate and effective alternative remedy under the MRTP Act is itself an indication of the fact that the civil court's jurisdiction is not excluded. The learned counsel contended that the trial court has misconstrued the provisions of the MRTP Act and has failed to appreciate the settled principles which the court has to follow while ascertaining whether the civil court's jurisdiction in excluded or not. The learned counsel further contended that even in cases where the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred expressly or impliedly, the court could, nonetheless, retain its jurisdiction to entertain the suit if the order impugned is a nullity. The learned counsel contended that the trial court has wrongly observed that the plaintiff has not challenged the impugned notice on the ground that it is a nullity. She drew my attention to the prayer clause of the plaint, and submitted that the plaintiff has prayed for a declaration that the impugned notice is void ab initio. The learned counsel submitted that the said declaration is equivalent to the declaration that the impugned notice is a nullity.

( 9 ) IN support of her submission that the