1995 (2) TMI 439 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the City Civil Court vs. Small Causes Court.
2. Applicability of Section 41(1) of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882.

Summary:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the City Civil Court vs. Small Causes Court

The primary issue was whether the suit filed by the plaintiff, claiming the right to possess the suit premises as a licensee against the defendant (alleged licensor), is cognizable by the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, u/s 41(1) of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, or by the City Civil Court, Bombay, constituted under the Bombay City Civil Act.

The High Court ruled that such a suit is not maintainable before the City Civil Court and should be filed in the Small Causes Court, Bombay, u/s 41(1) of the Small Causes Courts Act. The appellants contended that this view was incorrect, while the respondents supported it.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 41(1) of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882

Section 41(1) states that the Court of Small Causes shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try all suits and proceedings between a licensor and licensee, or a landlord and tenant, relating to the recovery of possession of any immovable property situated in Greater Bombay, or relating to the recovery of the license fee or charges of rent thereof, irrespective of the value of the subject matter of such suits or proceedings.

The Court held that for Section 41(1) to apply, the following conditions must be satisfied:
1. It must be a suit or proceeding between the licensee and licensor, or between a landlord and a tenant.
2. Such suit or proceeding must relate to the recovery of possession of any property situated in Greater Bombay.

The Court found that the suits in question were indeed between licensees and licensors and related to the recovery of possession of immovable property situated in Greater Bombay. Thus, they fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court, Bombay.

The Court emphasized that the phrase "relating to recovery of possession" is comprehensive and includes suits for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from effecting forcible recovery of possession from the plaintiff-licensee.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits, which should be filed in the Small Causes Court, Bombay. The City Civil Court was directed to return the plaints to the respective appellants for presentation to the proper Court of Small Causes, Bombay. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.