Whether Small cause court has jurisdiction to try suit between licensor and ex-licensee?

He relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of our Court in the cases of Nagin Mansukhlal Dagli v. Haribhai Manibhai Patel MANU/MH/0179/1980 : AIR 1980 Bombay 123.

5. As held by our Court in the case of Nagin Mansukhlal Dagli (supra), a suit for recovery of immovable property held by the licensee as well as for recovery of licence fee or charges may very well lie under Section 41 after such licence has come to an end; it is nonetheless a suit between a licensor and a licensee; and the argument that Section 41 must be confined only to suits where the licence has not been terminated earlier by the licensor, is fallacious. The expression 'licensees' used in Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act not only includes licensees whose licence is subsisting but also licensees whose licence has been terminated by the licensor prior to the filing of the suit. After the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Nagin Mansukhlal Dagli, the argument that the suit for recovery of possession could be filed by a licensor against a licensee only in a case where the relationship of licensor and licensee subsists as on the date of the suit, is no more res integra.

7. Accordingly, on the averments made in the plaint itself, it is clear that the present suit is between a licensor and a licensee and it relates to recovery of possession of premises which are the subject matter of licence and also for recovery of licence fee. This suit is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Courts of Small Causes under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Notice of Motion No. 3139 of 2010 in Suit No. 886 of 2010 and Suit No. 886 of 2010

Decided On: 24.11.2015

Kirti Sohan Modi  Vs.  Creation

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.C. Gupte, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/3282/2015

Print Page