1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 276 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 326 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 448 OF 2009 Mr. Hanif Bharucha & Anr. ....Appellants Versus M/s. Delta Telecome India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ....Respondents. Mr. R. A. Thorat for the Appellants. Mr. S. A. Sawant for Respondent No.2. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 7th JULY, 2009. P.C. Heard, Mr. Thorat, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Sawant for Respondent No.2. 2. The Appellants are the original plaintiffs. Their suit was held not maintainable for want of jurisdiction in the City Civil Court and the plaint accordingly, was returned back to them to present the same before the Small Causes Court. The Appellants are lessees of Respondent No.2, in respect of the open land. The Appellants further claims that the Respondent No.1 is their licensee, in respect of the structure standing on the said open land. The prayer clauses (a), (b) & (d) reads as follows: “(a) That it may be declared by this Hon’ble Court that any arrangement, agreement and/or undertaking entered into between the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 amongst themselves illegal, unlawful and unenforceable in respect of the said godown situated at C.T.S. No. 2 103, at 469 A, Near Sheetal Cinema Theater, L.B.S.Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 and not binding upon the Plaintiffs. (b) That the Defendant No.1, his servants, agents and/or any person claiming through or under him be restrained permanently by an Order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court from surrendering or parting with possession or entering into any deal, arrangement with the Defendant No.2 in respect of godown situated at C.T.S. no.103, at 469A, Near Sheetal Cinema Theater, L.B.S. Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070. (d) That without prejudice to the prayers above the Defendant be directed to hand over the vacant, exclusive and peaceful possession of the said godown situated at C.T.S. no.103, at 469A, Near Sheetal Cinema Theater, L.B.S.Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai-400 070, to the Plaintiffs only. 3. There is no dispute that the Respondent No.1 is Appellants’ licensee. If the prayer clauses (a) (b) & (d) which are mentioned above, are perused, then it is clear that the suit is related to the possession of the suit property. In that view of the matter, under the provisions of section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Act, the Small Causes Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Similar view is taken by the Trial Court and therefore, I do not find any error in the finding of the Trial Court, so as to enable me to interfere in the Appeal from Order. The Appeal from Order is accordingly, dismissed. 3. In view of the disposal of the Appeal from Order, the Civil Application Nos.326 and 448 of 2009 will not survive and therefore, the same is disposed of. Sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)