Final Order 3

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1368-2019 1
IN THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL COURT AT GR.BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2612 OF 2019
CNR NO.MHCCO10071772019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.1368 OF 2019
M/s.Hiralal Desar Rana Clothing Company
LLP ..Plaintiff
Versus
Mrs.Kalyani Satish Jaiswal & anr ..Defendants
Plaintiff in person
Ld. advocate Chirag Gandhi for the defendants
CORAM: HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI M.SALMAN AZMI
DATE: 19/09/2019
ORAL ORDER
1. This notice of motion is tendered by the defendants
interalia for rejection of the plaint Under order VII
Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
2. The contention of the defendants is that relationship
between the plaintiff and defendants is of licensor
and licensee and therefore this Court has no
jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. The
Court of Small Causes Court has jurisdiction to try
and entertain suit of like nature.
3. The notice of motion is opposed by the plaintiff. The
2
-- 1 of 4 --
1368-2019 2
contention of the plaintiff is that Civil Court has
jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. He
would submit that as per Section 9 of the Civil
Procedure Code, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try
the suit except the suits of which cognizance is either
expressly or impliedly barred. He would submit that
as per Sec.41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court,
the suit interalia between landlord and tenant for
recovery of possession of any immoveable property
or relating to the recovery of the license fee are
required to be filed in the Court of Small Causes
Court. He further pointed out that as per Sec.33 of
the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,1991, the bar of
jurisdiction is in similar terms. He would submit that
the suit against dispossession without the consent of
the plaintiff or otherwise than in due course of law
can be entertained by this Court. The suit is u/s. 6 of
the Specific Relief Act by a person who is wrongfully
and forcibly dispossessed by another, though the
relationship between the two is described as landlord
and tenant. Unless the suit specifies the requirements
of section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Court
Act, the Civil Court's jurisdiction cannot be barred.
4. On perusal of the plaint avernments, it is apparent
that the plaintiff is claiming to be in continuous
possession and occupation and enjoying the suit
3
-- 2 of 4 --
1368-2019 3
premises as a tenant. The contention of the plaintiff
is that he has been forcibly and wrongfully
dispossessed on 20/05/2019. He was in possession
till 19/05/2019. The plaintiff claims to be in
possession of the suit premises. The inquiry u/s. 6 of
the Specific Relief Act is limited. The Court is not
expected to examine the status of the possession.
The only inquiry which is contemplated u/s.6 of the
Specific Relief Act is that a person who was
dispossessed without his consent of the immoveable
property otherwise than due course of law within six
months preceding to the filing of the suit. The
inquiry as to right or title is not contemplated u/s. 6
of the Specific Relief Act. The inquiry is limited only
to the extent of illegal dispossession and whether the
plaintiff was in possession. Even the inquiry of his
possessory right is also not contemplated. Merely his
status as licensee or tenant in the suit premises
would not oust the jurisdiction of this Court. The
inquiry is not pertaining to the relationship of the
parties as licensor or licensee. The claim of the
plaintiff is restricted on the basis of previous
possession and wrongful dispossession and he is not
claiming for restoration of possession in the capacity
of licensee. Even when this case it is not disputed
that the plaintiff was in possession. The question of
4
-- 3 of 4 --
1368-2019 4
dispossession whether illegal and forcible is limited
inquiry in this case. Therefore, this Court has
jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. Therefore,
the notice of motion needs no consideration. Hence,
it is expedient to pass following order:
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.2612/2019 is dismissed.
2. Costs in the cause.
3. Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly.
19/09/2019 M.SALMAN AZMI
CITY CIVIL COURT,
GR.MUMBAI.
Dictated on : 19/09/2019
Transcribed on : 23/09/2019
Signed on : 30/09/2019
'CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
30/09/19 at 4.00 pm.
MRS.T.C.KAMBLE
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI M.S.AZMI, CR NO.1
Date of Pronouncement of
judgment/order
19/09/2019
Judgment and order signed by P.O. 30/09/2019
Judgment/order uploaded on 30/09/2019
-- 4 of 4 --