Order 4

Order Details: Order on Exhibit
Pdf Text: 1
MHSCA30004452026
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BOMBAY
(BANDRA BRANCH)
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT NO. 9
IN
R. A. E. SUIT NO. 153 OF 2026
Shri Narsingh Laduram Chawla ...Plaintiffs
V/s.
Smt. Hemavati Shashikant Shetty …Defendant
Mr. Rajendra P. Mishra, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Mr. Sanju Gadekar, Advocate for Defendant.
Coram : L.B.M.M.A. Syed,
Court Room No.38
I/c. Judge, C. R. No.35 (B.B.)
Date : 03rd September, 2026
ORDER
This is an application filed by the defendant for rejection of
suit under Order VII, Rule 11(a) and Rule (d) of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908.
The background facts necessary for the determination of this application
can be stated as under :-
2. It is the case of the defendant that, the plaintiff has filed the
present suit on the ground of eviction of the defendant. The plaint is liable
to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and Rule 11 (d) of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as the
‘Code’) as it does not disclose any valid cause of action against the
defendant. The plaintiff has pleaded that his father late Ladhuram Chawla
/home/steno38/Desktop/Ex-9 RAE 153 of 2026 (7-11).odt
-- 1 of 5 --
2
purchased plot no.8 in the year 1950 and after the demise of his father, the
plaintiff became co-owner and landlord of CTS No.455 and 455/1 to
455/9. The said averments are unsupported by the property cards issued
by the City Survey authority. The property card shows the name of
Government of Maharashtra as a original holder of the property. Neither
the plaintiff nor his father or any ancestors is not shown as original holder,
owner, occupier or pattedar of suit premises.
3. The plaintiff has failed to establish any legal title of
ownership, land lordship or interest recognized under law in respect of the
suit property. Therefore the plaintiff is not having any locus to institute the
present suit. The plaint also does not disclose any legal right enforceable
against the defendant. The defendants husband late Shashikant Achanna
Shetty died on 04.10.2015. The tenancy, if any, and the consequences
thereof cannot be adjudicated without proper pleadings. The plaintiff has
deliberately suppressed the official revenue record and has based the suit
only self averments. Therefore, the defendant prayed to reject the plaint.
4. The plaintiff has filed his say at (Exh.11) and denied each and
every averments made in the application. He further submits it is settled
principle of law that for rejection of plaint, the Court has to look into the
plaint and not the defence. Till now, the defendant has not filed written
statement and nor had say anything about the rent receipt annexed with
the plaint. The application is devoid on merit and he prayed to reject the
application.
5. From the perusal of application and reply following points are
arises for my determination, and I record my findings thereon with the
/home/steno38/Desktop/Ex-9 RAE 153 of 2026 (7-11).odt
-- 2 of 5 --
3
reasons as under :
Sr.
No.
Points Findings
1. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected
under the Code ?
In the Negative.
2. What order ? Application is
rejected.
AS TO POINTS NO.1 AND 2 :
6. Read the plaint and also perused the documents filed along
with plaint, also read the application and say, while deciding the
application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code, only the plaint has to be
read as a whole. Only the plaint has to be considered and not the defense
of defendants. On the touch stone of the above principle, I would like to
proceed with the application.
7. The defendant herein says and submits that the suit
property has mentioned in the plaint that C.T.S. No.455,455/1 to 9 of Kher
Wadi Bandra (East) belongs to the Government of Maharashtra. He has
annexed the copies of Property Card to demonstrate his claim. As the
property belongs to the Government and therefore, the plaintiff cannot be
deemed to be the landlord of suit premises. According to the defendant,
the plaintiff failed to establish any legal title, ownership, land lordship or
interest under law in respect of the suit premises. Moreover, the plaintiff is
not having any locus to institute present suit. The plaint does not disclose
any legal enforcible right against him.
/home/steno38/Desktop/Ex-9 RAE 153 of 2026 (7-11).odt
-- 3 of 5 --
4
8. On a bare perusal of copy of plaint, it appears that the
plaintiff is claiming to be a landlord after the demise of his father Laduram
Chawla who died on 02.06.1980. According to the plaintiff, the defendant
has failed to pay the rent since July 2012. The present suit is filed on the
ground of bonafide requirement. The plaintiff has issued legal notice on
17.01.2026 through his advocate to the defendant calling upon him to
vacate the suit premises. The said notice was returned unserved. The
plaintiff has annexed the copy of rent receipt dated 08.12.2011 to show
that the defendant is tenant of the suit premises. The said receipt
demonstrate that the defendant is the tenant of suit premises, it also
demonstrate the fact that the defendant has paid the rent in the year 2011.
After the institution of present suit, the defendant has taken a stand that
the property belongs to the Government and not of the plaintiff. I have
carefully perused the copies of Property Cards filed by the defendant which
goes to show that the name of Government is appearing therein. The
mutation entry was accorded in the year 2015 and 2016 respectively and
name of Government was included in the Property Cards.
9. This Court is empowered to deal with the disputes in
between the landlord and tenant. This Court cannot decide the title
disputes in between the parties. The plaintiff has filed the copy of rent
receipt which is annexed with the plaint which goes to show that the
relation in between the plaintiff and defendant is of landlord and tenant.
The plaint discloses the cause of action against the defendant to institute
the suit. As this Court being a special Court to deal with the cases
pertaining to Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, only to try the suits in
/home/steno38/Desktop/Ex-9 RAE 153 of 2026 (7-11).odt
-- 4 of 5 --
5
between the landlord and tenant. This Court cannot travel beyond its
jurisdiction to decide the title of the parties. The plaint properly discloses
the cause of action against the defendant. Therefore, the plaint cannot be
rejected simply on the ground that the Property Card shows the name of
Government. The said point can be agitated by the defendant during the
trial. Hence, I answer points No.1 in negative and in response to point
No.2, the application is sans merit and liable to be rejected. Hence, in the
sequel, I pass the following order :
ORDER
The application is rejected.
(L.B.M.M.A. Syed)
Judge, C. R. No.38
Date : 03.09.2026 I/c. Judge, C. R. No.35 (B.B.)
/home/steno38/Desktop/Ex-9 RAE 153 of 2026 (7-11).odt
-- 5 of 5 --