The Bombay High Court, in one of its judgement, has observed that the maintainability of any suit depends on the suit pleadings not on the rival party's defense thus dismissing a Civil Revision Application filed in a suit wherein the applicants are the original defendants,
The Court's judgement came out while hearing a revision application filed against a judgement in which the Trial Court rejected the defendant's applications under Section 9A and Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC.
CASE BACKGROUND
The original case was filed by the applicant therein against the applicant herein (original defendant) seeking communication regarding fair rent for the property in his occupation.
He appealed to the Trial Court to decide the issue if the original defendant fails to do the same.
The owners of the disputed land originally leased it out for 99 years to the defendant. Taking advantage of the long term lease, he constructed a house on one part of the property and sold it in.
CASE FACTS
As per plaintiff Vijay, the suit property measuring 991.47 sq. mts. is located in Bhamarudra, Shivaji Nagar, within Pune Municipal Corporation. The owners originally leased it for 99 years to Daji Hari Lele. As the lease was for the long term, he constructed a house on one part of the property and sold it in Dec 1926 to Vasudeo Eknath Mengale. Again Vasudeo, in September 1947, leased out the 'northern portion' of about 5062 sq. ft., to Umakant Bhaskar Joshi for 72 years. Umakant, then, constructed a house in that portion. By 1935, not much vacant land remained. In March 1991, the heirs of Vasudeo Mengale, who purchased the leasehold rights in 1947, sold the rights to Jasraj Rathnakar, Vijay's father. It was through a registered deed. The property thus 'sold' measures 991.47 sq. mts., with a structure measuring 280 sq. mts.
The rights so transferred include "ownership rights in the construction standing thereon with a right to recover the rent from the subleases and tenants kept by Mahadev Mengale." The sublessees are Ramesh Devarchand Mutha and Ravindra Singhvi (fourth defendant in the suit)
After that, a dispute arose amongst the sublessees leading to the filing of two separate writ petitions which ultimately resulted in a compromise. Ramesh Mutha and Ravindra Singhvi agreed to transfer all their rights in the property acquired by them from Mengale family to Vijay and defendant No. 5.
Following this, the defendants Shamrao and Laxman started claiming rights over the suit property citing the alleged Sale Deed to have been executed between the legal heirs of Shirole family and Saraswatibai Moreshwar Kulkarni. They alleged that they are the legal heirs of late Saraswatibai.
Following the row, the plaintiff sent a notice to them in Oct 2013 stating that he was ready to execute a new Lease Deed on the previous terms and conditions as the original Lease Deed contained.
Thereafter, in Jan 2014, the defendant asserted that the lease was to expire in March 2014, on which the plaintiff informed the first and the second defendants that he was ready to execute a fresh Lease Deed.
In turn, the defendants though sought the plaintiff's eviction after which he filed the present case.
Thereafter, defendants applied under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. for the rejection of the plaint on the alleged grounds that the plaintiff hasn't paid the requisite court fee.
It was asserted before the Court that the suit wasn't maintainable before the Small Causes Court in terms of Section 33 (1) (c) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Nature of the property was also disputed and thus they applied under Section 9A of C.P.C. for the non-suiting the plaintiff.
Trial Court rejected the defendants' application and the same day, rejecting the defendants' application under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C.
The judgement was delivered by Judge DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU on 18-12-2019.
Read Judgement Here:
