1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Admit. With the consent of the parties, appeals are taken up for final disposal.

2. The appellants-original owners of the property are taking exception to the order passed by the trial Court on 9th November, 2011 thereby directing return of plaint for presentation to proper forum. Since the order passed by the trial Court is similar in all the matters, these Appeal from Orders are being disposed of by common judgment.

3. The appellants-original plaintiffs presented suit claiming possession of the suit property for mandatory and permanent injunction. Plaintiffs claim to be owners of the suit property and suit structure consisting of 14 looms in building no. 14A which according to plaintiff was completely gutted down due to fire on 12th December, 2010. The total area of the suit structure is 1400 sq. feet and each of the defendant possesses an area to the extent of 100 sq. feet. It is the contention of the plaintiff that as a result of fire defendants-tenants are rendered homeless. The plaintiffs issued a letter to MHADA and informed that they are willing to bear the expenses of reconstruction of the structure and further requested the defendants 2 and 3 not to issue no objection certificate to defendant no.1 for reconstruction of the structure. According to plaintiffs, the defendant no.1 in each of the matter carried out construction activities which is illegal and not contemplated by provisions of MHADA Act. According to plaintiffs as a result of destruction of structure the tenancy of defendant no.1 came to an end and they do not have any right in respect of the suit land. The defendants also do not have entitlement to unauthorised construction over the suit premises. The plaintiff as such claims a decree of recovery of possession of the land.

4. The defendants appeared and denied the adverse contentions. The defendants raised one preliminary objection as regards jurisdiction of the Civil Court in view of Section 177 of MHADA Act, 1976 so also in view of provisions of Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rents Control Act. The case of the defendants appears to be that the whole structure is not gutted down and they are entitled to carry out the repairs and reconstruction with the permission of MHADA. It is further contended by the defendants that the affected persons applied to MHADA under Section 101 and 102 of MHADA Act for repair and reconstruction of the structure which was destroyed due to fire and MHADA has issued no objection certificate on 22nd June, 2011 in respect of the repairs. According to defendants the suit presented by the plaintiff has become infructuous and is liable to be dismissed.

5. After presentation of the suit initially ad-interim order was passed by the trial Court on an application tendered by the plaintiff which was subject matter of challenge in different appeals before this Court. This Court had directed the trial Court to decide the preliminary objection raised by the defendants in respect of jurisdiction of the Court under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure and the ad-interim order passed by the trial Court was required to be construed as an interim order passed under Section 9A (ii) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court accordingly considered the preliminary objections and recorded finding to the effect that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of provisions of Section 17 of MHADA Act and directed return of the plaint. It would be appropriate to reproduce the prayers made by the plaintiffs. Prayers (a)(b)& (c) contained in Para 18 of the plaint read thus:

“(a) for a decree of this Hon’ble Court against the Defendant No.1 to handover the possession of the land admeasuring 100 sq.ft under the unauthorised structure admeasuring 100 sq. ft, being Room No. 2A on the ground floor, Building No. 14 A, 393, New Girgaonkar Wadi, Sitladevi Temple Road, Mahim, Mumbai 400 016 to the plaintiffs;

(b) that the Defendant No.1, b