A suit under Section 41 of the PSCC Act is not maintainable if the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act apply, as established by the plaint's averments.

J U D G M E N T :

1 Applicants have filed this Revision Application challenging the order dated 14 February 2024 passed by Appellate Bench Small Causes Court in P Appeal No.294 of 2022. The Appellate Bench has allowed the Appeal and has set aside order dated 12 October 2022 passed by the Small Causes Court on application at Exhibit-31, by which the Small Causes Court had rejected the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (Code). The Appellate Bench has restored the suit bearing TE & R Suit No.78/102 of 2010.

2 Facts of the case, in brief, are that Plaintiff landlord has instituted TE & R Suit No.78/102 of 2010 against the Maharashtra State Co- operative Rural Multipurpose Development Bank Limited and Liquidator appointed on the Bank (Defendant) seeking recovery of possession of suit premises totally admeasuring 15,000 square feet on ground, mezzanine and first floor of Building 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Mumbai – 400 007. The suit is filed under provisions of Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 (PSCC Act). The Plaintiff has averred in the paragraph 3 of the Plaint that the Defendant is exempted from protection under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act) by virtue of section 3(1)(b). It is further averred that the Defendant is also a Corporation established under the said Act. Thus, eviction suit is filed under provisions of section 41 of the PSCC Act on the ground that the Defendant is not entitled to protection under the provisions of the MRC Act. Defendants filed application at Exhibit-31 seeking rejection of Plaint under provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code by referring to the averments made in paragraph 19 of the Plaint, in which the Plaintiff has contended that the reliefs claimed in the Plaint arise out of statutory provisions of MRC Act. Defendants contended that the first Defendant is not a Bank nor a Corporation and that therefore Defendant is protected tenant under the provisions of the MRC Act. It was therefore contended that the suit under section 41 of the PSCC Act was barred. The Application was opposed by Plaintiffs by filing Afodavit-in-Reply contending that the suit under section 41 of the PSCC Act was maintainable in view of non-availability of protection to the Defendants under the MRC Act.

3 The learned Single Judge of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai allowed the application filed by the Petitioner at Exhibit-31 by its order dated 12 October 2022 and rejected the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code. Plaintiff filed P. Appeal No.294 of 2022 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. The Appellate Bench has allowed the Appeal and has set aside the order dated 12 October 2022 and has restored the suit filed by Plaintiff. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Bench, Petitioners have filed the present Revision Application.

4 Mr. Hakani, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants/Defendants would submit that the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court has erred in setting aside the order dated 12 October 2022 passed by the Small Causes Court rejecting the Plaint. That the Plaintiff has specifically averred in paragraph 19 of the Plaint that the reliefs claimed in the Plaint arise out of provisions of the MRC Act and that therefore the suit filed against protected tenant under section 41 of the PSCC Act is clearly barred by provisions of section 33 of the Rent Act. He would submit that the Appellate Bench has erroneously assumed that the Defendant-Bank is a Scheduled Co-operative Bank, in absence of any averment to that effect in the Plaint. That it is a settled law as per the judgment of this Court in Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Kolhapur vs. Dilip Shankarrao Patil , Second Appeal No.126 of 2023, decided on 25 April 2024 that the Co-operative Bank cannot be treated as Corporation within the meaning of section 3(1)(b) of the MRC Act. That since Defendant is neither a Bank within the meaning of Provis