1 cra1025-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1025 OF 2010 M/s. Lewis & Dias .. Applicant V/s. Mrs. A. J. Mistry & Ors. .. Respondents .... Mr. Satyan Vaishnav a/w. Mr. Rakesh D. Dave i/b. M/s. N.N. Vaishanava & Co. for the Applicant. Mr. Manek Kalyanwalla a/w. Agnel Carnevio i/b. Mulla and Mulla for Respondents. .... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : DECEMBER 15, 2010. P.C. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant. The applicant is the 4th defendant in a suit filed by first to seventh respondents in the Court of Small Causes. The suit is filed for eviction under the provisions of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Issue of jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes to try and entertain the suit was treated as a preliminary issue. The trial Court held that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The said order has been confirmed in Revision Application by the Appellate Bench. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that the first and the 2 cra1025-10 second defendants cannot be the statutory tenants and the said contention raised in the plaint is contrary to the express provisions of the said Act. 2. The law is well settled as far as the issue of jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes to entertain and try the suits under the said Act is concerned. Only the averments made in the plaint are required to looked into while deciding the issue of jurisdiction. The question whether there exists landlord tenant relationship can be gone into only after the evidence is adduced. If it is established that the landlord-tenant relationship does not exists, the Court is bound to dismiss the suit. 3. Suffice to say that the averments made in the plaint show that the suit is covered by Section 28 of the said Act. It is obvious that issue relating the existence of landlord-tenant relationship is kept open notwithstanding the impugned order. The said issue will be decided at the time of final hearing of the suit. No case is made out for interference. The Revision Application is rejected subject to what is observed above. JUDGE