Skip to content


Shankarrao Amrutrao Deshmukh Vs. Gendalal Tunnvalai Bhoi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Appln. No. 529 of 1971
Judge
Reported inAIR1976Bom52
ActsProvincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 - Sections 23
AppellantShankarrao Amrutrao Deshmukh
RespondentGendalal Tunnvalai Bhoi
Appellant AdvocateN.M. Dharaskar, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateG.J. Ghate, Adv.
Excerpt:
the case questioned as to whether the small cause court had jurisdiction to try the suit which was filed by the respondent for recovery of rent which involved question of title - the plaintiff had sale deed in his favour and the defendant tenant challenged title to the plaintiff - the written statement merely disclosed that a dispute was pending between the plaintiff and the vendors - it was held that merely on the account of that dispute it could not be said that in the suit there was a complicated dispute about title of property therefore, the small cause court had jurisdiction to try the suit. - - it is not necessary for me to go into the merits of this contention as i am otherwise satisfied that the small cause court has got jurisdiction to deal with this suit......have a jurisdiction to try the suit. mr. dharaskar then argues that at any rate there was in this suit a dispute about the title of the respondent and merely on account of this dispute the small cause court would be deprived of its jurisdiction try the suit. the contention also does not appeal to me. the respondents has got a sale- deed in his favour . in the written statement the sale-deed is not challenged on any specific ground. in fact, in the written statement no ground has been suggested to show how this sale-deed could be invalid. i therefore, do not accept the submission of mr. dharaskar that in the suit there was a complicate dispute about the title of the property. as such, the small cause court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. in the trial court the respondent had.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The respondent filed a civil suit No. 2337 of 1970 in the Small Cause Court at Nagpur for the recovery of rent from the petitioner. The property in dispute is a house bearing No. 465 at Circle No. 6/8. Ward No. 12. Garudkhamb Road. Nagpur. The respondent claims to have purchased the property on a December 11. 1968. The petitioner was a tenant in the property even before the respondent purchased the suit house. The claim for recovery of rent was in the sum of Rs. 95 and hence the suit was tried by the registrar of the Small Causes Court. The petitioner has filed his written statement at Ex.12. He disputed the title of the respondent and contended that there was a litigation between the respondent and his vendors in which the sale-deed in favour of the respondent was being challenged. He also claimed that he had paid rent to the previous owners. On account of the pleadings the issues were framed and the learned Registrar of the Small Causes found that the respondent proved that he was the landlord of the suit premises. He also found that the petitioner could not challenge the title of the respondent and the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. He also found that the respondent was entitled to get a decree in the sum of Rs. 95/- against the petitioner. It is this decree which is not challenged by this revision application.

2. Mr. Dharaskar, the learned advocate for the petitioner , submits that in the present case the petitioner had challenged the title of the respondent in the suit and, therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as a Small Cause Suit. He also disputed the finding of the learned Registrar that the rent was paid by the petitioner to the respondents under a receipt which was at Ex. 19 in the tribal Court.

3. In the written statement the petitioner has no doubt contended that the respondent has no title to the property. However, no reason has been ascribed as to why the sale -deed in favour of the respondent was being challenged. No specific grounds have been stated in the written statement which would go to invalidate the sale-deed in favour of the respondent. All that is stated in the respondent. All that is stated in the written statement is that there is a dispute pending between the respondent and his vendors in a civil suit and Mr. Dharaskar submits that on account of the pendency of this dispute. It is not clear whether the respondent has any title to the property or not. It is not possible for me to accept the submission of Mr. Dharaskar as the entire pleadings in the other suit are not before me. Besides, it is difficult to see how otherwise that would be relevant for the purposes of this suit. All that we get in the written statement filed by the petitioner is that a dispute is pending between the respondent and his vendors. Only on account of such a pleading, It is not possible for me to accept the submission of Mr. Dharaskar accept the submission of Mr. Dharaskar that the Small Cause Court would cease to have a jurisdiction to try the suit. Mr. Dharaskar then argues that at any rate there was in this suit a dispute about the title of the respondent and merely on account of this dispute the Small Cause Court would be deprived of its jurisdiction try the suit. The contention also does not appeal to me. The respondents has got a sale- deed in his favour . In the written statement the sale-deed is not challenged on any specific ground. In fact, in the written statement no ground has been suggested to show how this sale-deed could be invalid. I therefore, do not accept the submission of Mr. Dharaskar that in the suit there was a complicate dispute about the title of the property. As such, the Small Cause Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. In the trial Court the respondent had produced a receipt at Ex. 19 which prima facie goes to show that the petitioner had paid rent to the respondent. Mr. Dharaskar argues that this rent receipt is not genuine. It is not necessary for me to go into the merits of this contention as I am otherwise satisfied that the Small Cause Court has got jurisdiction to deal with this suit. No other point was urged and the decree made against the petitioner otherwise appears to be correct.

4. The result is that, this petition will have to be dismissed. The rule is discharged. The petitioner will pay the costs to the respondent.

5. Petition Dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //