Jurisdiction under rent-control law depends on the plaint, not the defence; City Civil Court retained jurisdiction here.

Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was held to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Court of Small Causes only where the plaint discloses a landlord-tenant dispute relating to rent, possession, or a claim arising under the Act. Jurisdiction is determined at the inception of the suit from the plaint, and a defendant's plea of tenancy cannot by itself shift the forum. The section does not extend to collateral questions of title or convert a suit framed as one between licensor and licensee into a rent-control dispute merely because tenancy is asserted in defence. The City Civil Court therefore had jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on a proper interpretation of section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the City Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit or whether exclusive jurisdiction lay with the Court of Small Causes, Bombay.

Analysis: Section 28 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Court of Small Causes in suits or proceedings between a landlord and a tenant relating to rent or possession and in claims or questions arising out of the Act. The governing principle is that jurisdiction is ordinarily determined at the inception of the suit on the basis of the plaint. A defendant's plea cannot by itself alter the forum if the plaint does not disclose a suit between landlord and tenant or a claim arising under the Act. The section does not confer exclusive jurisdiction to decide collateral questions of title or to convert a suit framed as one between licensor and licensee into a rent-control dispute merely because the defence asserts tenancy. Section 29-A also does not assist where the suit is not one to establish title de hors the Act.

Conclusion: The City Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and the plea of exclusive jurisdiction under section 28 failed.

---