https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307533 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. en-us Wed, 11 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Apr 2023 14:26:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307533 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 11 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307533