Whether CJJD can entertain eviction suit in respect of service tenancy?

Insofar as the issue of jurisdiction raised by the defendant is concerned, admittedly there was no writing entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant and the suit flat was handed over to the defendant for accommodation, he being an employee. No terms and conditions were agreed between the parties for payment of rent, royalty or any other compensation. The defendant in his cross-examination admitted that there was no such writing entered into between him and the plaintiffs and also with the wife of the plaintiff no. 2. The defendant also admitted that he had raised a false contention in the written statement that he was paying rent to the wife of the plaintiff no. 2. Upon making enquiry by this Court, learned counsel for the defendant upon instructions admitted that the defendant had not filed any suit for declaration for the alleged tenancy against the plaintiffs or the wife of the plaintiff no. 2 till date.

17. A perusal of section 22 of the M.R.C. Act, 1999 would clearly indicates that the proceedings for recovery of possession in case of tenancy created during the service period would lie before the competent authority only if there was any agreement between the landlord and employee creating service tenancy in respect of the premises or any part thereof. Admittedly there was no such writing executed between the parties. In my view section 22(2) of the M.R.C. Act, 1999 will stand attracted only if the conditions of section 22(1) of the M.R.C. Act, 1999 are satisfied. In my view, thus there is no substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the defendant that the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nashik had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and/or that the same could be tried only by the competent authority.

18. Admittedly, there is no Small Causes Court at Nashik. In view of section 33 of the M.R.C. Act, 1999, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nashik having jurisdiction in the area in which the premises is situated only could have exercised jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Second Appeal (Stamp) No. 2792 of 2016 and Civil Application No. 242 of 2016

Decided On: 17.02.2016

 Rajendra Suryakant More  Vs. Fixolite Wires & Cables Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

Citation: 2016(3) MHLJ 584

Print Page

Whether CJJD and CJSD can try suit under maharashtra rent control Act as regular suit?

 The conclusions of the learned Principal District Judge that the
Civil Judge (Junior Division) could not have tried the civil suit as he was not
invested with powers of the Small Causes Court and he could not have
entertained   and   tried   the   civil   suit   valued   above   Rs.6,000/­,   are   also
unsustainable. The learned Principal District Judge has committed an error in

recording that the provisions of Section 33(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent
Control Act, 1999 are attracted. In the present case, the provisions of Section
33(1)(c)   of   the   Maharashtra   Rent   Control   Act,   1999   will   be   applicable.
Section 33(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 lays  down that
if the valuation of the civil suit is upto the limit of the jurisdiction of the Civil
Judge (Junior Division), then he can entertain and decide the civil suit.  The
Division   Bench   of   this   Court,   in   the   judgment   given   in   the   case   of
Radheshyam Zumbarlal Chandak  (supra) has clarified that if the Court of
Small Causes is not established at a particular place or the High Court,
exercising powers under Section 28(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Courts Act,
has not invested any Civil Judge with the jurisdiction of the Court of Small
Causes for the trial of civil suits cognizable by such Courts, then the  ordinary
original civil jurisdiction conferred upon the Civil Judge (Junior Division) or
the Civil Judge (Senior Division) will be available to the parties and the civil
suit will have to be tried by the Civil Judge as Regular Civil Suit depending
upon the pecuniary limits of the Civil Judge as provided by Section 24 of the
Maharashtra   Civil   Courts   Act.     The   conclusions   of   the   learned   Principal
District Judge are unsustainable.  
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3305  OF 2015

Mangesh Vasant Ajmire, V  Pradeepkumar Bansilal Mohta, 

    CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
     DATED   : JULY 05, 2016.
Citation: 2016 (5) MHLJ 476 Bom

Print Page

Whether civil judge junior division has jurisdiction to decide suit pertaining to judgment of C.J.S.D.?

 The applicant and the respondent wrongly assumed that because 

the present Suit pertains to a judgment of C.J.S.D. It should not be tried by a a C.J.S.D. This impression is obviously incorrect in view of S.15 of CPC. The C.J.J.D. is competent to try this suit because the C.J.J.D. is not examining the correctness and validity of the 

judgment and decree in the previous suit. The question between the parties is likely to be whether the defendants made false 

representation to the plaintiffs in respect of the ownership of the land on which the suit structure is standing and from which the plaintiffs are sought to be evicted pursuant to the judgment and decree Sp.Civil Suit No.5/76. Such question can certainly be decided by the 

C.J.J.D. The present suit could not have been valued on the basis of the license fee or the market value of the property but it should be as per S.6 (1) of Bombay Court Fees. So the suit should be tried by the Court of C.J.J.D.

Bombay High Court

C vs H on 18 July, 2013

Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande

1. Smt Rajivas Vasu Shetty
 V/s.
1. Insanali Nasibdar
Citation;2013(5)ALL M R641

Print Page