Tenancy rights under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act can be claimed by legal heirs of a deceased tenant, and jurisdiction for such claims lies exclusively with the Small Causes Court.

1.These two Civil Revision Applications are filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the applicants who were original defendant no.1 (landlord) and defendant no.2 (new tenant) 024:BHC-AS:2 in a declaratory suit, filed by legal heir of original tenant.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their nomenclature in the trial Court. FACTS :

3.The premises in the present proceedings is a residential room bearing no.11, admeasuring 10 ft. x 12 ft. situated at Bohori Chawl, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar, Mumbai – 400 028 (for short ‘the suit premises’).

4.The original tenant of the suit premises was one Mr.Udaybhan Singh. The said Mr.Udaybhan Singh died around 12 July, 1989. It is an admitted fact that the landlord of the suit building was one Mr.Damji Gala. The said Mr.Damji Gala expired in the year 2006. Defendant no.1 is the son of deceased Damji Gala.

5.The said original tenant Mr.Udaybhan Singh was survived by his wife Mrs.Pyaridevi and by son Mr.Umakant. Mrs.Pyaridevi also expired on 12 July, 2003. Mr.Umakant, son of the original tenant has claimed his tenancy rights under section 7 (15) (c) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short MRC Act).

6.The said Mr.Umakant filed a Declaratory suit being R.A.D. Suit No. 1556 of 2009, claiming tenancy of the suit premises, before the Small Causes Court at Bombay. In the said suit, he joined son of the original landlord, as party defendant. So also, he added the newly inducted tenant of suit premises as defendant no.2-Mr.Narhari Chandrayya Konda. In the said suit, a declaration was sought that he is the tenant of the suit premises, and the rent receipt of the suit premises be transferred in his name. So also, an order and decree was sought from the Court that the defendant no.2 (new tenant) be directed to vacate and handover peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff.

7.After the summons was served on the defendants, the defendant no.1 filed his written statement to the plaint. So also, the defendant no.2 filed his separate written statement.

8.On behalf of the plaintiff, evidence was led by the plaintiff himself. The said witness was cross-examined by advocate appearing for the defendant no.1, and by advocate appearing for the defendant no.2. On behalf of the defendant no.1, evidence was led by the defendant no.1 by stepping into the witness box. The defendant no.1 was cross examined by the advocate appearing for the plaintiff. So also, the defendant no.2 entered the witness box, and he was cross-

examined by an advocate appearing for the plaintiff. The defendant no.2 also examined a person named as Mr.Anil Shankar Ambokar, who was staying near the suit premises. The said witness was also cross-

examined by the advocate appearing for the plaintiff.

9.After the evidence was closed, the parties made their submissions before the Trial Court and the Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 28 September, 2018, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

10.Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court being Appeal No. 39 of 2019 under section 34 of the MRC Act.

11.The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court after hearing all the parties, by its judgment and decree dated 14 February, 2023, held that the the Court of Small Causes had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. It was further held that the plaintiff had proved that his father Mr.Udaybhan was tenant of the suit premises and that the plaintiff became tenant of the suit premises after the death of his mother Mrs.Prayidevi.

12.The Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the R.A.D.Suit No. 1556 of 2009 was decreed on the terms that the plaintiff was declared as a tenant of the suit premises and the defendants were directed to put the plaintiff into the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises on or befo