1993 (8) TMI 320 - HC - Indian Laws

City Civil Court lacked jurisdiction, orders return of plaint due to Bombay Rent Act provisions

Dinyar Behramji Irani Versus Kshirsagar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.

The City Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit, leading to the order for the return of the plaint to the plaintiff. The court emphasized ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the City Civil Court to entertain the suit.2. Adequacy of opportunity provided to the plaintiff to adduce evidence.3. Allegation of design to deprive the plaintiff of alternative accommodation by MHADA.4. Applicability of the Bombay Rent Act to the open plots in question.5. Nature of relief sought by the plaintiff and its impact on jurisdiction.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the City Civil Court:The learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay, by the impugned order dated 6th July 1993, directed the return of the plaint to the plaintiff after holding that the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain, try, and decide the suit. The principle followed was that the allegations made in the plaint decide the forum to entertain and try the suit, and jurisdiction does not depend upon the defense taken by the defendants in the written statement. The issue was rightly decided as a preliminary issue under section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Adequacy of Opportunity to Adduce Evidence:The plaintiff contended that the learned trial Judge did not afford adequate opportunity to adduce evidence on the issue of jurisdiction. However, it was noted that no such opportunity was sought by the plaintiff before the trial Court, nor was any grievance made in the memorandum of appeal. Therefore, the submission that the learned trial Judge did not follow the principles enunciated in the ruling of Kranti Mohan v. Fatehchand was not accepted.3. Allegation of Design by MHADA:The plaintiff alleged a design to deprive him of alternative accommodation by MHADA. This was noted by the learned trial Judge but not commented upon in the judgment. It was not pleaded that the plaintiff had approached MHADA for alternate accommodation or that it was refused. Moreover, MHADA was not a party to the suit, and hence, no relief could be granted on this ground.4. Applicability of the Bombay Rent Act:The plaintiff argued that the learned trial Judge did not consider whether Part II of the Bombay Rent Act was applicable to the open plots. The plaintiff's own averments indicated that the plots were used for parking motor vehicles and carrying out business operations, which falls within the ambit of section 6(1) of the Bombay Rent Act. The learned trial Judge correctly held that the dispute fell within the ambit of section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, which applies to premises let for business and trade.5. Nature of Relief Sought and Jurisdiction:The relief sought by the plaintiff was for an injunction against the defendant from trespassing and interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the plots. This relief is covered by the decision in Eknath v. Mansukhlal, which held that suits relating to recovery of possession fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes. The learned trial Judge was right in passing the order for the return of the plaint to be presented to the appropriate Court of competent jurisdiction.Conclusion:The order passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court for the return of the plaint was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed. The order returning the plaint shall not be given effect to until 6th September 1993, and the parties are directed to maintain the status quo until that date. The plaintiff is at liberty to seek interim relief from the Court of Small Causes after the plaint is lodged in that Court. No order as to costs, and the civil application stands disposed of. Certified copy expedited.