Bombay High Court
Smt. Sudha Wd/O Mohanlalji ... vs Madanlal S/O Brijlal Kediya And ... on 12 December, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
WP 7665.17.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.7665 OF 2017
Smt. Sudha wd/o Mohanlalji
Chiraniya, Aged about 58 years,
Occupation - Trader,
C/o. Ramjilal Kunjilal Chiraniya,
Grocery Shop, R/o. Bhavan Mahavir
Marg, Buldhana, Tahsil and District-
Buldhana-443001. .. PETITIONER
.. VERSUS ..
1] Madanlal s/o Brijlal Kediya,
Aged about 80 years,
Occupation-Nil,
R/o. Buldhana, in front of
B.D.C.C. Bank, Tahsil and
District-Buldhana.
2] Ramgopal s/o Brijlal Kediya,
Aged 67 years, Occupation-Trader,
R/o. Maharmo Society, near
Bahjanand Society, Nr Pond Road,
Kothrud, Pune,
Tahsil and District-Pune-411 029.
3] Mrs. Shantabai w/o Badrinath Agrawal,
Aged 70 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Near Public School, Kadarabad,
Tahsil and District-Jalna-431 203.
4] Ku. Shakuntala d/o Brijlalji Kediya,
Aged 60 years, Occupation-Nil,
Mentally retarded, through her
guardian appointed by Court i.e.
Madanlal Brijlal Kediya.
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 01:54:31 :::
WP 7665.17.odt 2
5] Vinod s/o Madanlal Kediya,
Aged 57 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o. Buldhana, In front of
B.D.C.C. Bank, Tahsil and District-
Buldhana. .. RESPONDENTS
..........
Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for Petitioner,
Shri Tushar Darda, Advocate for Respondents.
..........
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATED : DECEMBER 12, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties.
2] By this petition, petitioner is challenging the
judgment and order dated 26.9.2017 passed by the learned
District Judge, Buldana thereby rejecting Civil Revision
No.1/2017 and confirming the order passed by the learned
2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Buldana dated 4.1.2017
in Regular Civil Suit No.71/2016 below Exh.8.
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 01:54:31 :::
WP 7665.17.odt 3
3] The facts giving rise to the petition may be stated
in nutshell as under :
Petitioner is a tenant in suit premises.
Respondents filed a suit for recovery of possession, arrears
of rent and damages. Petitioner/defendant appeared in suit
and moved an application (Exh.8) raising an objection to the
tenability of suit. According to the defendant, as the dispute
is between landlord and tenant, under Section 33 of the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to
as 'Act'), the suit ought to have been registered as small
cause suit and should have been tried by the court
empowered under the Act.
4] Application was resisted by the landlords.
According to respondents-landlords, under section 33 of the
Act, the suit can be filed in the court of lower grade
irrespective of the amount claimed therein. It was also
submitted that civil court has jurisdiction to try and decide
the dispute between landlord and tenant, as Court of Small
Causes was not established for Buldana city.
5] After hearing the submissions made on behalf of
the parties, Trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 01:54:31 :::
WP 7665.17.odt 4
can be registered as Regular Civil Suit and Civil Court has
jurisdiction to take cognizance, try and decide the dispute.
6] The order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division) was carried in revision by the defendant. The
Revisional Court found the revision not tenable and
dismissed the application. Being aggrieved thereof, present
petition has been filed by the defendant under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India.
7] The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the
dispute between landlord and tenant under the Maharashtra
Rent Control Act is to be entertained and decided by the
Small Causes Court. It is submitted that the suit ought to
have been registered as Small Causes Suit and not as
Regular Civil Suit registered by the Civil Court. Referring to
the provisions of Sections 33 and 34 (4) of the Act, learned
counsel submitted that the orders passed by the courts
below are unsustainable in law and need to be rectified.
8] Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents
submits that the Court of Small Causes has not been
established for Buldana city and in such a situation, Civil
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 01:54:31 :::
WP 7665.17.odt 5
Court has jurisdiction to decide the dispute between
landlord and tenant. It is submitted that the suit can be
registered as Regular Civil Suit under Section 33 (1)(b)(c) of
the Act. Respondents supported the orders passed by the
courts below and placed reliance on the judgment of the
learned Single Judge of this court in Mangesh s/o Vasant
Ajmire .vs. Pradeepkumar Bansilal Mohta, [2016 (5)
Mh.L.J. 476].
9] From the provisions of Section 33(1)(b) & (c) of the
Act, it can be seen that Civil Judge (Junior Division) having
jurisdiction in the area in which the premises are situated or,
where there is no Civil Judge (Junior Division), the Court of
the Civil Judge (Senior Division) having ordinary jurisdiction
to entertain and try any suit or proceeding between a
landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or
possession of any premises, has jurisdiction to decide the
suit.
10] It is not in dispute that in Buldhana city, Small
Causes Court has not been established so far. The Court of
Civil Judge (Junior Division) is functioning.
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 01:54:31 :::
WP 7665.17.odt 6
11] In such circumstance, objection raised by
defendant regarding incorrect registration of suit does not
sustain. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition No.7665/2017 stands dismissed.
(ii) Rule discharged.
(iii) No costs.
(Kum. Indira Jain, J.)
Gulande, PA
