1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the District Judge-9, whereby he dismissed a miscellaneous appeal as not tenable.

3. The facts relevant for the purpose of this writ petition are as follows –

The petitioner/plaintiff instituted a civil suit in the court of small causes for possession of the suit property against respondent no.1/defendant alleging that respondent no.1, who is a tenant has not paid the rent regularly. The suit is filed under the Maharashtra Rent Act. Respondent no.2 filed in that suit an application purporting to be an application under Order 1 Rule 8-A of C.P.C. for adding him as plaintiff. The learned Small Cause Judge allowed the application and plaintiff felt aggrieve thereby. The plaintiff, therefore, preferred miscellaneous appeal before the District Judge against the said order. The learned District Judge upon hearing the parties found that an appeal is not maintainable and the plaintiff feels aggrieved by that finding and prefers this writ petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent.

5. Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits before me that an appeal must lie before the District Judge. He submits that although order 50 of C.P.C. would disclose that provisions of Order 41 to 45 do not apply to small cause suit still an appeal could be preferred by virtue of provisions of Section 26-A of the Small Causes court Act. He submits that if Section 17 and 26 to 26-C are read together that would make it clear that an appeal would lie against such an interim order. He also submits that the provisions of Section 17, 26 to 26-C of Provincial Small Causes Court Act and provisions of Section 33 and 34 of Maharashtra Rent Act are not inconsistent. He submits that if they are read harmoniously it would be clear that an appeal against the interim order could lie to the District Judge. The undisputed facts are as follows –

i) There is a court established at Nagpur under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act,

ii) the suit is pending before it,

iii) the suit is under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Act, 2000 and,

iv) the appeal is preferred against an interlocutory order.

6. To my mind, the provisions of Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Act and Section 26 of the Small Causes Court Act need to be read together. Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Act reads thus-

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 Causes Courts Act, 1897, 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 authorized 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.

7. A bare reading of the Section would make it clear that the power to exercise the jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Rent Act is vested in Small Causes Court. It in fact becomes a Tribunal und