Small Causes Court retains jurisdiction over eviction suits filed before 21st September 1989 under the PPE Act despite subsequent transfers, as affirmed by the Division Bench ruling.

JUDGMENT :

MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Nasikwala, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Bangale, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

2. The challenge in this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 13^th August 2025 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Mumbai below Exhibit-70 in L.E. & C. Suit No.103/123 of 1983 as also to the order dated 12^th September 2025 passed by the learned Division Bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai in Revision ApplicationNo.239 of 2025. The said Application below Exhibit-70 has been filed by the present Petitioner who is the Defendant No.1, seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 (hereinafter referred as “CPC” for short). The said Application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 13^th August 2025 by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai and the same is confirmed by the Revisional Court by the impugned order dated 12^th September 2025.

3. Mr. Nasikwala, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that in view of Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as “PPE Act” for short), no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of the eviction of any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises or for the arrears of rent. He submits that the jurisdiction is only that of the Estate Officer who has been appointed under the PPE Act. Therefore, he submits that as the Small Causes Court, Mumbai has no jurisdiction the plaint is liable to be rejected. He points out Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Hussainali Sharif Punjwani vs. The Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay , (2017) SCC OnLine Bom. 2637 and more particularly Paragraph No.73 of the same. He therefore submits that what is held by the Division Bench is that Small Causes Court would have jurisdiction to hear all such suits for eviction which were lodged/filed before the 21^st September 1989 and on the other hand the Small Causes Court would continue to have jurisdiction to decide those suits which were pending on 21^st September 1989. He further submits that although the subject suit has been filed on 12^th April 1983 in Small Causes Court, Mumbai, meanwhile, the Estate Officer was appointed on 22^nd September 1989 and the said Suit was transferred from Small Causes Court, Mumbai to the High Court on 22^nd April 1996 and the same was transferred to the City Civil Court in view of increase in pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court on 24^th September 2013, however, the City Civil Court transferred the said suit back to the High Court on 05^th April 2014 and thereafter, the High Court has transferred the same to the Small Causes Court by order dated 07^th May 2015. He therefore, submits that it has to be assumed that the suit has been filed in the Small Causes Court in the year 2015 and therefore in terms of the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Hussainali Sharif Punjwani (supra), the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the said suit.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Bangale, learned Counsel appearing for the Board of Mumbai Port Authority, submitted that what is important is the date of the institution of the Suit which is admittedly 12^th April 1983. He further submits that as the date of the institution of the Suit is of 12^th April 1983 i.e. on or before 21^st September 1989, in terms of the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Hussainali Sharif Punjw