The court ruled that jurisdiction determinations must be based on both pleadings and evidence rather than solely on occupancy certificates.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Mr. N. Sardessai, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The above appeal came to be admitted by order dated 02.03.2006 on the following substantial questions of law.

1. Whether the findings of the appellate Court that for deciding jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit, pleadings of the parties are not material and that the Court can decide upon the jurisdiction in the absence of any pleadings, be said to be legal and valid in the eyes of law especially in view of the fact that the defendant/respondent's claim for ouster of Civil Court's jurisdiction was based on the alleged fact that the suit premises had completed much prior to the filing of the suit and this fact was not pleaded in the written statement ?

2. Whether the Courts below were justified in permitting the defendant to lead evidence and further considered the same for the purpose of non-suiting the plaintiffs on the ground that the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to try the suit when the evidence that was led was on a point, which was not pleaded in the written statement or was justified in permitting the defendant to lead the evidence as rebuttal to the evidence placed on record by the plaintiffs without necessary details being included in the pleadings in the plaint ?

3. Mr. Sardessai, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in support of the above appeal has pointed out that somewhere on 30.07.1981, an agreement was entered between the appellants and the respondent in respect of the premises intended to be given on lease to the respondent for commercial purpose after the building construction was completed. The learned counsel further pointed out that it is the contention of the appellants who are the original owners of the premises that such building was completed in December, 1982. The learned counsel further pointed out that in support of their said contention the appellants have adduced evidence and examined the witnesses which discloses that the premises were completed in December, 1982. The learned counsel further pointed out that even the rent in respect of the disputed premises was paid by the respondent from the year 1983 which according to him also establish that the premises were occupied by the respondent only after the year 1982. The learned counsel further pointed out that during the course of examination of DW1 a document was produced by the respondent claiming to be an occupancy certificate in which it is stated that such occupancy certificate was issued in August, 1981. The learned counsel further pointed out that it is the case of the appellants that the said document was fabricated and the same was produced only in the year 2001 when no such reference was made either in the pleadings of the respondent nor such document was relied upon by the respondent in the list of documents produced by the respondent. To establish the said aspect, the appellants had also examined the Chief Officer who has inter-alia supported the contention of the appellants that the document was suspicious. The learned counsel has taken me through the judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court and the learned Trial Judge to show that the Courts below have relied upon such occupancy certificate to come to the conclusion that the premises were completed in August, 1981 and as such the suit filed by the appellants for eviction before the Civil Court was not maintainable as the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide such suit. The learned counsel however points out that as the premises were new and the building was completed in December,1982 the suit filed by the