The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit did not relate to the recovery of possession, and therefore, the jurisdiction of the court was not ousted by the provisions of section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and section 50 of the Bombay Public Trust Act.

DBSHMUKH D. K. , J.

( 1 ) IN this suit, by order dated 3rd February, 2005 two preliminary issues have been framed in accordance with the provisions of section 9-A of Civil Procedure Code, which read as under :-" (I) Does defendant No. 1 prove that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and presidency Small Causes Court Act ? (ii) Does defendant No. 1 prove that the suit as framed and filed is not maintainable in this Court in view of the provisions of sections 50 and 51 of the Bombay Public Trust Act ?"both the parties stated that they do not want to lead oral evidence in relation to these issues. Therefore, on the basis of pleadings and the documents produced by both the parties, I have heard learned Counsel for the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1.

( 2 ) NOW first taking up the Issue No. 1, the learned Counsel for defendant no. 1 submits that the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit is barred by the provisions of section 33 of The Maharashtra Rent Control Act. He submitted that by this suit, a decree for the specific performance of the obligations imposed on the defendant No. 1 as a lessee in the lease deed, is sought. He submitted that this suit relates to the possession of the demised premises by the defendant No. 1, therefore, the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit is barred. He relies on the judgments of the learned Single judge of this Court in the case of (i) (R. J. Mehta, President Engineering Majdoor sabha and another v. Govind Ramchandra Nadkami), 1989 (2) Bom. C. R. 175, (ii) (Eknath Vithal Ogalev. Mansukhlal Dhanraj Jain), 1988 (2) Bom. C. R. 9.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for plaintiffs submits that unless the suit relates to the recovery of possession of the demised premises, the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit will not be barred by the provisions of section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The learned Counsel in support of his case relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case (Vishnu Dutt Vashisth and another v. Maharashtra Watch and Gramaphone Company and Firm at Bombay and others), A. I. R. 1967 Bombay 434; and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Mansukhlal Dhanraj jain and others v. Eknath Vithal Ogale), 1995 (3) Bom. C. R. 240 : 1995 (2) S. C. C. 665.

( 4 ) NOW in order to appreciate the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, which reads as under :-"section 33. Jurisdiction of courts : (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in, any law for the time being in force, but subject to the provisions of Chapter VIII, and notwithstanding that by reason of the amount of the claim or for any other reason, the suit or proceeding would not, but for this provision, be within its jurisdiction, - (a) in Brihan Mumbai, the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai, (b) in any area for which, a Court of Small Causes is established under the provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (IX of 1887), such Court, and (c) elsewhere, the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) having jurisdiction in the area in which the premises are situate or, if there is no such Civil Judge, the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) having ordinary Jurisdiction, shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try any suit or proceeding between a landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises and to decide any application made under this 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 of sub-section (2), no other Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any such suit, proceeding, or application or to deal with such claim or question. "for the present purpose, the words in that secti