Bombay High Court
Amravati District Central Co-Op. Bank ... vs Mr. Pradeep S/O. Radheshyam Chandak on 16 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:9767
1 202-wp-4884-15j.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4884 OF 2015
1. Amravati District Central Co-operative Bank
Ltd., Amravati through its Chief Executive
Officer/ Managing Director, Main Branch,
Irwin Chowk, Amravati, Taluka & District
Amravati (Maharashtra State).
2. Amravati District Central Co-operative Bank
Ltd., Amravati through its Manager, City
Branch, Opposite Prabhat Cinema, Prabhat
Chowk, Amravati, Taluka & District
Amravati (Maharashtra State). . . . PETITIONERS
// V E R S U S //
Mr. Pradeep S/o. Radheshyam Chandak,
Aged about 36 years, Occ. Legal Practitioner,
R/o. Prabhat Chowk, Amravati, Taluka &
District Amravati (Maharashtra State). . . . RESPONDENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri J. B. Kasat, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Sawan Alaspurkar, Advocate for respondent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- M. W. CHANDWANI, J.
DATED :- 16.09.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Heard.
2. The petition challenges the judgment and order dated 16.05.2009 passed by the Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati in Small Cause Civil Suit No. 156/2002 which was confirmed by the 2 202-wp-4884-15j.odt District Judge-3, Amravati vide judgment and order dated 28.04.2015 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 115/2009.
3. It is not necessary to go into the factual matrix of the case in detail. Suffice to say that the respondent herein is the landlord of the suit premises occupied by the petitioners as a tenant. After the respondent issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, "the Act of 1882"), the petitioners agreed to hand over possession of the suit premises on 31.07.1999 due to compromise in the proceedings pending before the the Additional Collector/RDC. However, even after expiry of the said period, the petitioners did not hand over the possession of the suit premises to the respondent. The respondent then filed a civil suit for eviction, possession and Mense Profits on the ground of bonafide need. The Trial Court decreed the suit on both the counts and directed the petitioners to hand over possession of the suit premises to the respondent and also directed an enquiry into the Mesne Profits. The order of the Trial Court came to be challenged by the petitioners in Regular Civil Appeal No. 115/2009. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. However, the First Appellate Court observed that the petitioners are protected tenants under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, "the Rent Act") and therefore, tenancy can be terminated by taking 3 202-wp-4884-15j.odt recourse only to the provisions of the Rent Act and not by notice under Section 106 of the Act of 1882. However, the First Appellate Court while concurring with the findings of the Trial Court held that the respondent is in bonafide need of the suit premises and consequently, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved with the decisions of both the Courts below, this petition came to be filed.
4. Mr. Kasat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently submitted that as per Section 33 of the Rent Act, the jurisdiction to decide proceedings is with the Court of Small Causes established under the provisions of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. If no such Court is established, then Civil Judge Junior Division (CJJD), who has jurisdiction in the area in which the suit premises is situated, shall have the jurisdiction to try the suit. If there is no such Court of CJJD, then the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division (CJSD) shall have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit between a landlord and a tenant relating to recovery of rent or possession of any premises.
5. Elaborating his argument, Mr. Kasat would submit that in Amravati, there is no Court of Small Causes and in that scenario, it is only the Court of CJJD which will have jurisdiction and not the Court 4 202-wp-4884-15j.odt of CJSD. According to him, the decree passed by the Jt. CJSD, Amravati is without jurisdiction and goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, it can be challenged at any stage of the proceedings, even during execution proceedings.
6. The sum and substance of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, in absence of the establishment of the Court of Small Causes, it is only the Court of CJJD which is competent to entertain the suit between a landlord and a tenant relating to recovery of possession or rent. Only in a case where neither the Court of Small Causes nor the Court of CJJD is present, the Court of CJSD will have jurisdiction. To buttress his submission he seeks to rely on various decisions of this Court, more particularly the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Savitribai and another Vs. Vithal Hari Petkar 1. To buttress his subsequent submission that a composite suit is not maintainable, he seeks to rely on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shantabai Yashwant Kothare Vs. Shankar Parshuram Naik 2.
7. Conversely, Mr. Alaspurkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that, no objection was raised either 1 AIR 1981 BOM 430 2 2006 (5) Mh.L.J. 651 5 202-wp-4884-15j.odt before the Trial Court or before the First Appellate Court and therefore, the objection with regard to jurisdiction has to be raised at the earliest and cannot be taken at a belated stage. To buttress his submission he seeks to rely on the decision in the case of Mangesh Vasant Ajmire Vs. Pradip Bansilal Mohata3. It is also contended that the Court of CJSD, which decided the suit acted well within its jurisdiction to dispose of the suit filed by the respondent, since there is no Court of Small Causes at Amravati. To buttress his submission he seeks to rely on the decision in the case of Sukhlal Bhivsan Dhobi Vs. Vinayak Sadashiv Sangale & anr.4.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the judgments impugned, it transpires that the relation between the parties is that of landlord and tenant. The suit has been filed before the Court of CJSD, Amravati. Undisputably, in Amravati City there is no Court of Small Causes. The question that arises here is, inspite of availability of the Court of CJJD at Amravati, whether CJSD, Amravati was competent to try the suit having regard to the provision of Section 33 of the Rent Act, which is reproduced here:-
3 2016 (5) Mh.L.J. 476 4 2014 (3) Mh.L.J. 939 6 202-wp-4884-15j.odt "33. Jurisdiction of courts.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, but subject to the provisions of Chapter VIII, and notwithstanding that by reason of the amount of the claim, or for any other reason, the suit or proceeding would not, but for this provision, be within its jurisdiction,--
(a) in Brihan Mumbai, the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai,
(b) in any area for which a Court of a Small Causes is established under the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 (IX of 1887), such court, and
(c) elsewhere, the court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) having jurisdiction in the area in which the premises are situate or, if there is no such Civil Judge, the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) having ordinary jurisdiction, shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try any suit of proceeding between a landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises and to decide any application made under this Act (other than the application which are to be decided by the State Government or an officer authorised by it or the Competent Authority) and subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), no other court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any such suit, proceeding, or application or to deal with such claim or question.
(2) (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub-section (1), the District Court may at any stage withdraw any such suit, proceeding or application pending in a Court of Small Causes established for any area under the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 (IX of 1887), and transfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) having ordinary jurisdiction in such area;
(b) where any suit, proceeding or application has been withdrawn under clause (a), the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) which thereafter tries such suit, proceeding or application, as the case may be, may either retry it or proceed from the stage at which it was withdrawn;
(c) The Court of the Civil Judge trying any suit, proceeding or application withdrawn under clause (a) from the Court of Small Causes, shall, for purposes of such suit, proceeding or application, as the case may be, be deemed to be the Court of Small Causes."
9. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ranchhodlal Vallabhdas Vs. Mahendrakumar Ambalal 5 had the occasion to deal 5 AIR 1956 BOM 481 7 202-wp-4884-15j.odt with the similar issue under the Rent Act wherein, this Court after considering Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 which is in pari materia with Section 33 of the Act of 1999 and the provisions of the Bombay Civil Court Act, 1869 has observed as under :-
"The Colleague may be a joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, or he may be a Civil Judge, Junior Division, because not only the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, but also the Civil Judges, Junior Division, are Judges of one and the same Court, the Court presided over by the Civil Judge, Senior Division."
10. Elaborating the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Ranchhodlal Vallabhdas (supra), the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Savitribai (supra) relied upon by the petitioner himself, has very specifically observed that a suit could be tried by the Court of all Jt. CJSD or Jt. CJJD to whom the suit may be referred to for disposal by the Principal Judge or by the District Judge under Section 23 of the Bombay Civil Court Act, 1869. Para No. 12 of the judgment of the Division Bench is reproduced hereunder:-
"12. In view of the above discussion, we hold that there being no Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Kolhapur, it is the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) which has the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit under Section 28 of the Rent Act. The suit could be tried by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) who is the Principal Judge. It could also be tried by all the Joint Civil Judges (Senior Division) or by Joint civil Judges (Junior Division) to whom the suit may be referred to for disposal by the Principal Judge or by the District Judge under Section 23 of the Civil Courts Act, 1869, or transferred to that Court under Section 24 of the C. P. C. This being the position in law, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kolhapur, was competent to try the suit in this case and consequently the decree passed therein is valid and executable."
8 202-wp-4884-15j.odt
11. The facts of the said case before the Division Bench reveal that essentially, the suit was filed for recovery of possession before the Court of CJSD, Kolhapur and thereafter, it was transferred to the Court of Jt. CJJD, Kolhapur. Later on, the District Judge passed an order under Section 24 of the CPC withdrawing the suit from the Court of Jt. CJJD, Kolhapur and transferring the same to the Court of 2nd Jt. CJSD for disposal. The observations of the Division Bench in para no. 12 of the decision that there is no Court of CJJD at Kolhapur are in the sense that there is no establishment of Court of CJJD, since all the suits are filed in the name of CJSD. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since there was no Court of CJJD at Kolhapur, the Division Bench in the case of Smt. Savitribai (supra) observed that that the Court of CJSD will have jurisdiction is misconceived. Rather, the case of Smt. Savitribai (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners supports the very argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that, in case of non-availability of the Court of Small Causes, the Court of CJSD is competent to try the suit between landlord and tenant in respect of recovery of possession irrespective of the availability of CJJD at the station.
12. In view of the legal position discussed above, this Court is not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned 9 202-wp-4884-15j.odt counsel for the petitioners. Hence, the petition has no merits and consequently it is dismissed.
(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.) RR Jaiswal Signed by: Mr. Rajnesh Jaiswal Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 25/09/2025 18:54:17