Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2. Since parties and issues involved are similar, these Civil Revision Applications are being disposed of by common judgment. The representative facts are taken from the first matter, viz., Civil Revision Application No. 662 of 2012, for the sake of brevity and convenience.

3. By this Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the applicant is challenging the orders of the learned Single Judge and Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, whereunder the applicant's plaint is rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (d), of C.P.C.

4. Respondent No. 1 is the owner and landlord of the suit premises, and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the Authorities under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. The applicant filed a suit for declaration that his possession of the suit premises is protected under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and by prayer (b), a declaration is sought that the applicant, as a tenant of suit premises, cannot be summarily evicted vide notice issued by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 under Section 95A(2) of the MHADA Act. By prayer clauses (c) and (d), the validity of notice under Section 95A (2) of the MHADA Act is challenged. The applicant also applied for orders of temporary injunction protecting his possession. The respondents objected jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court. The issue of jurisdiction was decided by the learned Single Judge of the Small Causes Court, and the applicant's suit was dismissed. Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court confirmed the finding of the learned Single Judge that the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, however set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the suit, and, instead, the applicant's plaint was rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d), of C.P.C.

5. The following facts are not disputed:-

Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the plots bearing City Survey Nos. 1944, 1/1944, 2/1944, 3/1944 and 4/1944, along with the 17 buildings constructed on these plots. The applicant is the tenant in respect of Room No. 29 on the 2nd floor of one of the buildings, viz., Laxmi Building, 616-P, N.M. Joshi Marg, Byculla, Mumbai. Defendant No. 1 submitted his properties to MHADA for re-development. There are, in all, 6 such plots of defendant No. 1, on which 17 buildings are standing. 70% of the tenants of these buildings have given their consent for development of these buildings. MHADA has undertaken the development of these buildings and their re-development by amalgamating all these 6 plots together. Thereafter, notices under Section 95A(2) of the MHADA Act are issued, which, as stated above, are challenged by filing the above suit.

6. Mr. Gorwadkar, learned counsel for the applicant, took me through the provisions of Sections 16(1) and 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and Section 95A of the MHADA Act, and submitted that the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, being a special enactment dealing with control of eviction of tenant, Section 33 thereof will prevail and override Section 95A of the MHADA Act. He submitted that respondent No. 1, through respondent Nos. 2 to 4, by issuing notices under Section 95A of the MHADA Act, is trying to evict the applicant. He further submitted that, in view of the provision of Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, respondent No. 1, in order to evict the applicant, will have to approach the Court under Section 16(1)(g) of the said Act. He also submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Small Causes Court has jurisdiction to decide the suit, and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. He relied upon the Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in DattatrayaKrishna Jangam v. Jairam Ganesh Gore, AIR 1965 Bom 177, and a decision of the Apex Court in Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios & Ors., AIR 1981 S.C. 537.

7. Mr. Aspi Chinoy, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 1