JUDGMENT :

Manish Pitale, J.

Both the civil revision applications arise out of the same impugned order and hence, they are taken up for hearing together and decided by this common order.

2. Civil Revision Application No.78 of 2019 has been filed by the original defendant No.1-Parvana Bhavana Memorial Trust and Civil Revision Application 79 of 2019 has been filed by original defendant Nos.2 and 3-Municipal Commissioner and Town Planning Department. The applicants claim that the District Court, Nagpur (Appellate Court) committed a grave error by allowing the appeal of respondent No.1 (original plaintiff) and setting aside the order of the Small Causes Court, Nagpur. The Appellate Court found that the Small Causes Court, Nagpur, could not have rejected the plaint of respondent No.1 and that the suit was maintainable before the Small Causes Court.

3. The principal contention raised on behalf of the applicants in these revision applications is that in view of the specific bar under section 149 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short "MRTP Act"), whereby jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred, the Small Causes Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by respondent No.1, as the subject matter of challenge in the suit was a notice issued under Section 53 of the MRTP Act, as also an order sanctioning plan submitted by the original defendant No.1. The applicants contend that any grievance pertaining to such notice and order could be raised only under the provisions of the MRTP Act and therefore, the suit was not maintainable.

4. The facts relevant for deciding the present applications are that respondent No.1 in both the revision applications, is a tenant of the original defendant No.1 (applicant in C.R.A. No.78 of 2019) and it is in occupation of 1165 sq.ft. area for more than 50 years. Respondent No.1 claims that it has been paying rent regularly and in the last few years, since no one from the side of the original defendant No.1 was collecting the rent, the same was being regularly deposited in the bank. Respondent No.1 has contended before the Small Causes Court that the suit structure was constructed by one Mr.Eduljee pursuant to a sanction plan dated 31/07/1954, wherein the suit premises was shown as a showroom. According to respondent No.1, the original defendant No.1 sought to develop the area adjoining the suit premises through a developer.

5. On 17/12/2018, the original defendant No.2- Municipal Corporation issued a notice to respondent No.1 through the original defendant No.1 asking details of ownership and sanction plan. Respondent No.1 sent a reply on 26/12/2018 requesting for some time to submit documents. Thereafter, on 05/01/2019, defendant No.1 issued notice for removal of the suit premises on the ground that it was unauthorized construction. On 09/01/2019, respondent No.1 sent a letter to the Municipal Corporation stating that the notice was totally baseless, as it was in lawful possession of the suit premises.

6. Respondent No.1 filed Regular Civil Suit No.171 of 2019 before the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur for declaration and permanent injunction, apprehending coercive action in pursuance of the aforesaid notice dated 05/01/2019. In the said suit, the Municipal Corporation filed a copy of sanctioned map dated 14/08/2007 and it is at this stage that respondent No.1 came to know that the original defendant No.1 had applied for fresh sanction of the building plan and in the sanctioned map dated 14/08/2007, the suit premises were shown in marginal space, which were required to be demolished.

7. Respondent No.1 claims that it became aware of the sanctioned map and the fact that the suit premises were now being shown in the marginal space, only when the documents came on record in the aforesaid suit and, therefore, it was prompted to file the suit before the Small Causes Court, Nagpur from which the present revision applications arise. Respondent No.1 filed the said su