1 W.P.No.9365/11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9365 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.N.V.Gaware, advocate for the petitioners. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 08.12.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The present Respondent has filed a suit for recovery of rent and eviction. Initially, the said suit was filed in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.). The plaint was returned for presentation in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Shrigonda. It was numbered as RCS No. 188/2005. The learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Shrigonda passed an order returning the plaint for presentation before the proper Court as the suit claim exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff preferred appeal before the District Court. The District Court allowed appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 3. Mr.Gaware, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that 2 W.P.No.9365/11 in fact, the District Court has wrongly relied on Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act. The suit is filed in the year 2003. The Bombay Rent Act was not in force on the said date. As such on this count itself, the order deserves to be set aside. The learned counsel further contends that Shrigonda, is not shown in Schedule I of the Maharashtra Rent Act and as such the Maharashtra Rent Act is not applicable. The dispute would be governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. As the rent amount claimed is Rs. 1,13,637/- (Rupees one lac thirteen thousand six hundred thirty seven only) the same would be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.). The learned counsel submits that on all these counts the order of the District Court can not be sustained. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the order. It is not disputed by Mr.Gaware, learned counsel that the dispute between the landlord and the tenant in the area of Shrigonda were governed by the provisions of Bombay Rent Act. In view of Section 2(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Act, all the areas where Bombay Rent Act applies, the Maharashtra Rent Act also applies. Though the District Court has quoted Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, which is erroneous, still, the jurisdiction would be governed by provisions of Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Act. The provisions of Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act and 3 W.P.No.9365/11 Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Act are pari materia and it can not be disputed that the Civil Judge (J.D.), Shrigonda, would have jurisdiction to try the dispute. 5. In view of the above, the order passed by the District Court can not be faulted with. No case for interference is made out in the Writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.08.12.2011. asp/office/wp9365.11 4 W.P.No.9365/11