1. This petition filed by the tenants is directed against orders dated 14/6/2005 passed below exhibit 24 and earlier order dated 25/1/2005 passed below exhibit 20 by 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Special Civil Suit 122/2002. Said suit is filed by present Respondent/landlady for decree of possession, arrears of rent, damages and notice charges etc. and in that suit application moved by present Petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with section 33 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (Rent Act- hereafter) came to be rejected on 25/1/2005. Petitioners thereafter moved application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC for review (vide exhibit 24) which also came to be rejected on 14/6/2005. Petitioners contend that as it is a suit between landlord and tenant, Small Cause Court alone has jurisdiction while Respondent states that as her title has been denied by Petitioners, suit filed by her for recovery of possession on the basis of her title before Civil Court is maintainable. Both the orders passed by Civil Court are in favour of landlady. As per orders of this Court dated 26/7/2005, writ Petition is to be disposed of finally at admission stage only. Accordingly Rule made returnable forthwith and matter is heard finally by consent of parties.

2. In her plaint Respondent states that her husband owned shop block No 29 on the ground floor of municipal house number 49/62- A, ward No 30,General Merchant Co-operative Market cum Housing Society Ltd, Gandhibagh, Nagpur which said husband let out to present Petitioners through its Partner as per agreement of lease dated 26/9/73. She further states that firm of Petitioners was paying rent to her husband who latter gifted the block orally on 25/8/1999 to her and also delivered its constructive possession to her. Letter of attornment was issued to Petitioners and Petitioners on 24/3/2000 forwarded reply questioning said a gift and demanded true certified copy of gift. Hence plaintiff as also her husband issued registered notice dated 10/7/2001 but Petitioners/original defendants continue to forward rent in the name of husband. Respondent/plaintiff as also her husband accepted the rent up to 30 Apr 2000. Husband of Respondent then called upon Petitioners to pay arrears from 1/5/2000 to 30/6/2001 amounting to Rs 7000/ @ of Rs 500 per month to his wife i.e. present Respondent and also pointed out that in case of non-compliance of notice defendants would be required to face legal action and also pointed out provision for forfeiture of tenancy. Petitioners forwarded reply to their advocate again making allegations against the gift and specifically mentioning that Petitioners/defendants were legal and lawful tenants of husband and denied any attornment and arrears. They also enclosed two cheques for Rs 7000/- each. Hence husband of Respondent sent another reply notice dated 3/9/2001 to counsel for Petitioners in which he again reiterated earlier facts of oral gift and pointed out that Petitioners were unnecessarily causing harassment. He returned two cheques mentioned above along with said reply notice. On 17/9/2001 Respondent/plaintiff issued notice under certificate of posting asserting her title and mentioning all subsequent facts and demanding arrears of rent from 1/5/2000 till 31/10/2001. She also pointed out that there was denial of her title and hence Petitioners incurred forfeiture of their tenancy. She accordingly forfeited their tenancy rights from midnight of 31st Oct 2001 as per provisions of1 Section 111 (g) of Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter TP Act) and demanded vacant possession. In default she also claimed damages at the rate of Rs 100/per day from 1/11/2001. She stated that this notice was again replied with the same false and mischievous allegations on 26/9/2001 by Petitioners. The Respondent states that because of this reply forwarded to him, her husband forwarded a detailed notice on 15/10/2001 and again pointed out the cor