JUDGMENT

R.G. Ketkar, J. - Heard Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Gorwadkar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent in C.R.A.No.249 of 2018 at length.

2. Heard Mr. Wakankar, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the respondents in C.R.A.No.352 of 2015 at length.

3. Heard Mr. Phalke, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms Alefiya Madviwala, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.765 of 2018 at length.

4. C.R.A. No. 249 of 2018 is instituted by the applicant/defendant challenging the order dated 04.04.2018 passed by the learned District Judge-12, Pune below exhibits-42 and 43. Application exhibit-42 was filed by the applicant-defendant for stay of hearing of appeal filed by the defendant challenging the eviction decree passed by the learned trial Judge on 29.09.2016. Application exhibit-43 was filed under Order 7, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for return of the plaint for presentation before the proper Court. By order dated 04.04.2018, the learned District Judge rejected the applications and adjourned the hearing of the appeal for final arguments to 16.04.2018. It is the contention of the defendant that the suit premises is situate in Pune Cantonment area. The Suit is instituted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short ''Maharashtra Rent Act''). The provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Act are not applicable to the Pune Cantonment area. The defendant, therefore, filed applications exhibits-42 and 43 pending the appeal, which were rejected by the learned District Judge.

5. C.R.A. No. 352 of 2015 takes exception to the order dated 01.07.2014 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune below exhibit-50 in Civil Suit No.541 of 2008. By that order, the learned trial Judge rejected the application. The applicants/defendants have filed application for return of the plaint on the ground that suit property is situate in Pune Cantonment area, and therefore, the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the Suit. The provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Act are not applicable to Pune Cantonment area.

6. Writ Petition No. 765 of 2018 takes exception to the order dated 11.12.2017 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-5, Pune below exhibit-56 in Regular Civil Appeal No.155 of 2008. By that order, the learned District Judge rejected the application made by the defendants under Section 113 read with Order XLVI of C.P.C. for making reference to this Court for decision on the issue of applicability of the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Act to Pune Cantonment area and whether the Suit is cognizable by the Small Causes Court, Pune. Thus, in the above proceedings, the only question raised by the defendant/s is applicability of the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Act to Pune Cantonment area.

7. The above issue is raised along with other issues, in the following proceedings :

- W.P. No. 10221 of 2016, C.R.A. No.552 of 2017, C.R.A. No. 542 of 2017, W.P.

No. 1579 of 2015, W.P. No.12254 of 2017, W.P.No.8268 of 2016, W.P.No.2093 of

2015, W.P.No.8177 of 2017, C.R.A. (St.)No.9541 of 2018, C.R.A.No.1152 of 2014,

C.R.A.No.817 of 2014, C.R.A. No.863 of 2014, C.R.A. No.868 of 2014,

C.R.A.No.869 of 2014, C.R.A.No.870 of 2014 and W.P.No.5435 of 2015.

8. As the issue about applicability of the Maharashtra Rent Act is also raised in the above proceedings, all these matters were clubbed together and Advocates were also heard at length as regards applicability of the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Act to Pune Cantonment area. On one hand, defendants-tenants are contending that the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Act are not applicable to the Pune Cantonment area and on the other, respondents - plaintiffs/landlords are contending that notwithstanding repeal of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short ''Bombay Rent Act''), the notification dated