The Rent Court has jurisdiction to entertain suits for recovery of possession and related injunctions, as they are connected to landlord-tenant relationships under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.

JUDGMENT:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for parties, the Petition is taken up for disposal.

2. The Petition involves the issue of jurisdiction of Rent Court to entertain a suit seeking composite prayers for recovery of possession of premises and for permanent injunction to restrain Defendant –
tenant from using or occupying open space outside the suit premises. The Appellate Court has directed Plaintiff to elect the forum of Rent Court for claiming relief of recovery of possession of premises and to approach civil court for prayer of perpetual injunction. Plaintifflandlord is aggrieved with the order passed by the Appellate Court effectively ousting jurisdiction of Rent Court to try and entertain the prayer for perpetual injunction and has accordingly filed the present Petition.

3. The challenge arises out of judgment and order dated 27 October 2023 passed by the learned District Judge-3, Raigad-Alibag allowing Civil Revision Application No.1 of 2023 filed by Respondents- Defendants and setting aside order dated 16 November 2022 passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Alibag. The Trial Court had rejected application filed by Defendants at Exhibit-35 seeking direction against Plaintiff to elect the forum of Rent Court for the purpose of prayer clause 15(a) of the Plaint, with liberty to approach Civil Court for relief sought in prayer clause 15(b) and to this extent, the Appellate Court has directed return of Plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC.

4. A brief reference to the facts of the case would be necessary for better understanding of the issue at hand. Plaintiff/Petitioner is the owner and landlord of structure named as ‘Datta Prasad’, situated at House No.618, Netaji Subhash Chowk, at Revdanda, Taluka –Alibag, District-Raigad. Defendant-late Mohanlal Babulal Jain was inducted as a tenant in respect of ground floor premises of Datta Prasad building, whereas Plaintiff resides on the first floor. Thus, ground floor of building ‘Datta Prasad’ forms suit premises in Civil Suit No.190 of 2013 filed by the Plaintiff in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Alibag for recovery of possession thereof. Plaintiff has pleaded that there is an open space or compound admeasuring 50 x 20 ft on the rear side of the suit premises, which belongs to him and that the said open space does not form part of the tenanted premises. However, the said open space is permitted to be used by the Defendant-tenant for accessing toilet and bathroom located in the open space. Plaintiff has averred that the open space is for use by Plaintiff and family members. Plaintiff has sought recovery of possession of the suit premises on the grounds of unlawful subletting to tenant’s brother Narendra Babulal Jain, as well as bonafide requirement of Plaintiff. Plaintiff has pleaded in the Plaint that Defendant had illegally put up tin shed covering the rear side open space and using and occupying the same. It is Plaintiff’s case that since open space in the rear portion of the building does not form part of the tenanted premises, the Defendant-tenant cannot use or occupy the same. This is how in addition to the prayer for recovery of possession of the suit premises, Plaintiff has also prayed for order of injunction against Defendant from using and occupying the rear side open space and or from keeping any articles or things therein, except for accessing toilet facility. Plaintiff also sought injunction against the Defendant from using and or keeping any articles or things in the open passage from the entry of the building upto the staircase leading to the upper floor.

5. Plaintiff filed application for temporary injunction against the Defendant. Defendant appeared in the Suit and filed written statement as well as reply to the application for temporary injunction. It appears that application for temporary injunction was rejected by the Trial Court by order dated 20 November 2014. Plaintiff fil