The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'tenant' under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and the determination of jurisdiction based on the nature of the dispute.

1. In both the matters, Rule.

2. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matters are taken up for final hearing immediately.

3. To state in brief, the suit premises belongs to the Parsee Central Association Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and the mother of the plaintiff, Soli Bahadurji Batiwala was tenant in the suit premises 730 Hormuzd Building, Ground Floor, J. Vimadalal Street, Parsi Colony, Dadar (East), Mumbai 400 014. She was living in the house alongwith her son and grandchildren. The defendant no.1, who is the appellant before this Court, is the daughter of the plaintiff. Mother of the plaintiff died in 1980 leaving behind the plaintiff as her legal heir. Defendant no. 1 was married in the year 1998 and she went to live with her husband. Defendant no.2, who is the respondent no.2 before this Court, is the husband of the defendant no.1. Plaintiff filed suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from causing any interference in his possession over and from entering upon or continue to stay/occupy the premises. He also took out notice of motion for interim relief of the same nature. The suit and the notice of motion were filed before the City Civil Court , Greater Bombay. Defendant No.1 contested the matter contending that she was deemed tenant alongwith the plaintiff on death of her grandmother and, therefore, the dispute is between two tenants and as such, the City Civil Court does not have jurisdiction and that jurisdiction will lie with the Small Causes Court. She also contested the notice of motion on merits. After hearing the parties, the learned judge of the City Civil Court allowed the notice of motion and granted interim injunction pending the suit. That order is challenged by the defendant no. 1 in the Appeal From Order. As the defendant no.1 had challenged the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court and as the trial Court had not framed any preliminary issue in respect of jurisdiction as required under Section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure before deciding the notice of motion, by the order dated 29th August, 2011, in the Appeal From Order, this Court directed the learned City Civil Court to decide the question of jurisdiction and meanwhile, the appeal was kept pending before this Court. Thereafter, parties were heard by the learned Judge, City Civil Court and he came to conclusion that the City Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the pleadings in the plaint as well as the evidence placed before him. Those findings are challenged by the defendant no.1 by filing Civil Revision Application. As both the matters are connected, they are taken together for final hearing and disposal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties.

5. Undisputedly, the mother of the plaintiff was tenant in respect of suit premises and she was paying rent. She died in the year 1980 leaving behind her son, i.e., the plaintiff , his wife and children. After her death, the plaintiff was paying rent and rent receipts were transferred in the name of the plaintiff. Thus, the landlord accepted the plaintiff as tenant in the premises. Defendant no.1 was shown to be aged 35 years in the year 2011 when the Revision Application was filed. It shows that she was just a small girl aged about four year when her grandmother died. There is no record to show that she in her own right was accepted to be tenant in respect of suit premises. She was living in the house as a daughter and family member of the plaintiff. She got married in the year 1998 and went to live with her husband. Admittedly, her marriage with the defendant no.2 is still subsisting. There is no dispute between the husband and wife. As soon as she was married and she left the house of the parents to live with her husband, she became member of the family of the husband and from that time, she was no more member of the family of her pa