Questions and answers on law part 22

 Q 1:- Landlord has wrongfully dispossessed tenant from tenanted premises. Tenant has filed suit under S 6 of specific relief act for recovery of possession of tenanted premises. Whether suit is maintainable before city civil court or small cause court?

Ans: S 41 of Presidential Small cause court Act

"41. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act but subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), 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 licence fee or charges or rent therefor, irrespective of the value of the subject matter of such suits or proceedings.

Section 41 of the PSCC Act is interpreted by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of  Mansukhlal Dhanraj Jain, Vs. Eknath Vithal Ogale,  (AIR 1995 S.C 1102)  held that,

“the following conditions must be satisfied before

taking the view that the jurisdiction of the

regular competent Civil Court is ousted :

1. It must be a suit or proceeding between

the licensee and licensor; or

2. between the landlord and tenant or

3. such suit or proceeding must relate to the

recovery of possession of any immovable

property, situated in Greater Bombay, or

4. relating to the recovery of licence fee or

charges or rent thereof.”

Thus, if the suit is not between the landlord and tenant or

the licensee and licensor and is not relating to recovery of possession of immovable property, then the Court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction. 

As per this ratio small cause court has jurisdiction to try suit filed by tenant for recovery of possession from landlord even though it is filed under S 6 of specific relief Act.

Q 2:- Is the residential accommodation taken by the bank for its officials exempt from Maharashtra rent control act?

 For properly appreciating rival contentions, a reference will have to be made to Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, which reads as follows :-

"3. Exemption - (1) This Act shall not apply -

(a) .............................................................................

(b) to any premises let or sub-let to banks, or any Public Sector Undertakings or any Corporation established by or under any Central or State Act, or foreign missions, international agencies, multinational companies, and private limited companies and public limited companies having a paid-up share capital of rupees one crore or more."

As per this section, residential accommodation taken by the bank for its officials is not exempt from Maharashtra rent control act if share capital of bank is rupees one crore or more.

Q 3:- Whether civil judge junior division cadre officer can preside over lok adalat to compromise cases of district court ?

Ans: Act does not make out any distinction between reference made by Civil Court and Criminal Court. No restriction on power of Lok Adalat to pass award based on compromise arrived at between parties in respect of cases referred to by various Courts including both Civil and Criminal, Tribunals, Family Court, Rent Control Court, Consumer Redressal Forum, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and other forums of similar nature. Supreme Court of India K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon vs C.D. Shaji on 28 November, 2011 Bench: P. Sathasivam, J. Chelameswar Citation;AIR2012SC719, (2012)2MLJ307(SC), (2012)2SCC51

S 19 of the legal services Authorities Act speaks about a judicial officer, either serving and former..

In my opinion,  civil judge junior division cadre officer can preside over lok adalat to compromise cases of district court.

Print Page