Plaintiff's pleadings control jurisdiction in rent disputes; possession-based injunction claims over governed premises fall within special rent jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction must be determined from the plaintiff's plaint averments, not from the defence. Where the plaint asserted tenancy over open plots and sought to restrain interference with possession, the subject matter was treated as premises within the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and the alleged business use brought the plots within the statutory definition of let premises. A suit for protection of possession and injunction in relation to such premises fell within the special rent jurisdiction provision for recovery of possession, so the City Civil Court lacked jurisdiction. The attempt to rely on alternative accommodation or MHADA-related relief failed because no such relief was properly pleaded against MHADA and it was not a party.

---

---

Issues: Whether the City Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit having regard to the plaint averments and the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

Analysis: Jurisdiction had to be determined from the plaint and the plaintiff's own pleadings, not from the defence. The plaintiff asserted tenancy over the open plots and sought to restrain interference with his possession. On those averments, the subject matter was premises within section 5(8) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and the use alleged in the plaint and rejoinder showed that the plots were let for business purposes within section 6. A suit seeking protection of possession and injunction in relation to such premises falls within the wide expression relating to recovery of possession in section 28. The challenge that alternative accommodation or MHADA-related relief could sustain Civil Court jurisdiction was rejected, since no such relief was properly pleaded against MHADA and it was not a party to the suit.

Conclusion: The City Civil Court lacked jurisdiction and the plaint was rightly ordered to be returned for presentation to the proper Court.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the order returning the plaint was upheld, while the plaintiff was left to pursue available remedies before the Court of competent jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: In determining jurisdiction, the Court must look to the plaintiff's plaint averments; where the suit concerns possession of premises governed by the Rent Act and the relief is in substance connected with recovery or protection of possession, exclusive jurisdiction lies under the special rent jurisdiction provision.

---