IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.2862 of 2003. SUIT NO.2862 of 2003. SUIT NO.2862 of 2003. Huseinabai Abdul Kadar Lakdawala (Ghadiali) ..Plaintiff versus Khozem Abdul Kadar Lakdawala @ Ghadiali & Anr. ..Defendants Mr.V.S.Gharat for the Plaintiff Mr.R.D.Dave i/b.N.N.Vaishnawa for the Defendant CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 11th August, 2008. DATED : 11th August, 2008. DATED : 11th August, 2008. P.C. 1. The suit was originally filed against the defendant Nos.1 to 3 with regard to the suit shop No.10 more particularly described in prayer clause (a) of the plaint. By Order dated 6.7.2006 the defendant Nos.2 and 3 came to be deleted and accordingly suitable amendments were made in the plaint. 2. The plaintiff happens to be mother of defendant No.1 and the plaintiff has stated in paragraph 8 of the plaint that she inducted the defendant in the shop premises to carry on the business gratis i.e. without payment of any -2- compensation by the defendants to the plaintiff. This averment in paragraph 8 would clearly go to show that a gratuitous licence was created by the plaintiff. The present suit came to be filed in the year 2003 in this Court in view of the position of law which then prevailed, namely suit can be filed against gratuitous licensee in the Court if the value of the suit was more than 50,000/-. 3. In view of the judgment in case of Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha & Anr. vs. Manharbala Jeram Damodar & Ors. reported in 2007(5) Bom.C.R.1, it is held that the suit for recovery of possession in respect of premises in regard to gratuitous license created in favour of the defendant can not lie in this Court. In view of the same, this Court shall have no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. Hence the present suit will have to be returned to the plaintiff for filing it before the proper Court. 4. The learned Advocate for the plaintiff clarified that as of today no interim orders are running against the defendant. Hence no specific order in that behalf is required to be made. -3- 5. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I pass the following order: ORDER 1) In view of the judgment in case of Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha & Anr. vs. Manharbala Jeram Damodar & Ors. 2007(5) Bom.C.R.1, this Court shall have no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. 2) It is hereby ordered that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for filing it in the proper Court. 28th August, 2008 is the date fixed for returning the plaint to the plaintiff for filing it in the proper Court. Office shall return the plaint to the plaintiff accordingly. 3) On receipt of the plaint, the plaintiff shall file the suit in the proper Court. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)