1979 (2) TMI 204 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court lacks jurisdiction in property suit, directs Small Cause Court filing. Legislative intent clarified.

Nagin Mansukhlal Dagli Versus Haribhai Manibhai Patel

The High Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit between the parties. It concluded that the suit, primarily seeking ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain and try the suit.2. Nature and substance of the suit.3. Applicability of Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.4. Interpretation of statutory provisions and legislative intent.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Jurisdiction of the High Court to Entertain and Try the Suit:The primary issue was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit in light of Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, as substituted by the Presidency Small Cause Courts (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1975. The Court concluded that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The jurisdiction to entertain and try all suits and proceedings between a licensor and licensee or a landlord and tenant relating to the recovery of possession of immovable property situated in Greater Bombay was exclusively conferred upon the Court of Small Causes. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent was clear in conferring exclusive jurisdiction to the Small Cause Court, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of the High Court.Nature and Substance of the Suit:The Court examined whether the suit was genuinely for a declaration and injunction or essentially for the recovery of possession of immovable property. The Plaintiff had sought a declaration that the Defendant was a trespasser and a mandatory injunction for the Defendant to vacate the premises. However, the Court determined that the substance of the suit was for the recovery of possession of the flat. The Court emphasized that legal ingenuity in drafting the plaint should not obscure the real nature of the suit. The relief sought by the Plaintiff was essentially the recovery of possession, which fell within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court.Applicability of Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882:The Court analyzed Section 41, which provided that the Court of Small Causes had jurisdiction to entertain and try all suits and proceedings between a licensor and licensee or a landlord and tenant relating to the recovery of possession of immovable property situated in Greater Bombay. The Court noted that the section applied not only to suits during the subsistence of the license or tenancy but also after their termination. The Court rejected the Plaintiff's argument that Section 41 only applied to subsisting licenses or tenancies. The legislative intent was to cover all suits relating to the recovery of possession, irrespective of whether the license or tenancy had ended.Interpretation of Statutory Provisions and Legislative Intent:The Court delved into the legislative history and amendments to the Letters Patent of the High Court and the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948. The amendments were aimed at removing the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court in suits cognizable by the Small Cause Court or the City Civil Court. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent was to create exclusive jurisdiction for the Small Cause Court in specific matters, thereby excluding the High Court's jurisdiction. The Court also highlighted the broader language of Section 41, which included suits 'relating to' the recovery of possession, encompassing all reliefs associated with such suits.Conclusion:The Court held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the Plaintiff's suit and ordered the plaint to be returned to the Plaintiff for presentation to the Presidency Small Cause Court at Bombay. The costs of the suit and hearing in the High Court were fixed at Rs. 300, to be costs in the suit which the Plaintiff may file in the Bombay Presidency Small Cause Court.