Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Ranjit More, J.
Dhirajilal Vishanji Chedda
and Ors. —Applicant
versus
Kshitija Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd. Ors. —Respondents
Civil Revision Application
Nos.662, 663, 664, 665, 666, 667, 668 of 2012
Decided on 11.09.2012
For the Applicants:Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar i/by Mr. Niranjan A. Mogre, Advocates
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior, Mr. D.D. Madon, Senior, with Mr. Cyrus Ardeshir i/by M/s. Kanga & Co, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in C.R.A. 662, 664 and 665 of 201:Mr. V.M. Parshurami, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in C.R.A. 663, 666 and 667 of 2012:Mr. S.P. Thorat, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and MHADA Act, 1976 operate in different fields and there is no overlapping or repugnancy between these two enactments.
Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 115—Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999—Section 33—MHADA Act, 1976—Sections 95A and 177—Rejection of plaint—Suit filed by respondent for declaration that his possession of suit premises is protected—Issue of jurisdiction was decided by Single Judge of Small Causes Court and applicant’s suit was dismissed—In order to determine nature of suit, real substance of suit is required to be looked at and not legal ingenuity in drafting plaint— Dispute in suit is not merely dispute between landlord and tenant—Applicant is challenging notices under Section 95A of MHADA Act and statutory action of officers of MHADA—Small Causes Court, having limited jurisdiction to decide proceedings between landlord and tenant only, cannot decide validity of notices under Section 95A—Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to grant injunction against respondents—Impugned order affirmed—Civil Revision Applications dismissed. (Paras 12 to 16)
Result: Civil Revision Applications dismissed.
Ranjit More, J.—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 Dattatraya Krishna 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 f
