1 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 627 OF 2009 Sou. Prabhavati Tukaram Kachare. .. Applicant. Vs Sou. Sulochana Vitthal Paigude & Anr. .. Respondents -- Shri Sanjay Kshirsagar for the Applicant. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 1ST SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the revision applicant. The 1st respondent filed an application under Section 29 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The present application was for a restoration of electricity supply to the suit premises. The applicant was impleaded in the said application as the alleged landlady. On an application made by the applicant, an issue of jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes to entertain the application was raised. By the impugned order, the issue of jurisdiction has been answered against the applicant. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant invited attention of the Court to the averments made in paragraph 3 of the application of the 1st respondent and submitted that an entry of the 1st respondent in the suit 2 premises is admittedly as a licensee and there is absolutely no material of whatsoever nature to show that a tenancy was granted to the 1st respondent. He submitted that the effect of the impugned order is that the 1st respondent will claim tenancy rights in respect of the suit premises. He invited my attention to the observations made in paragraph 6 of the impugned order. 3. I have considered the submissions. The issue of jurisdiction was raised by the applicant on the ground that the 1st respondent was not a tenant but was inducted as a licensee. The application was filed in the Court of Small Causes which is the Court conferred with an exclusive jurisdiction under Section 33 of the said Act. The issue of jurisdiction will have to be decided on the basis of the averments made in the application filed by the 1st respondent. The case made out in the application and in particular paragraphs 5 and 6 thereof is that after expiry of the license agreement, the 1st respondent continued to occupy the suit premises as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-. Thus, there is an allegation in the application made by the 1st respondent that he is a tenant in respect of the suit premises. The issue whether a plea of tenancy is established or not is to be decided after the parties adduce evidence. On a plain reading of the averments made by the 1st respondent, the Court of Small Causes has jurisdiction to entertain the said application. The applicant can always urge at the time of final hearing of the application that the 1st respondent is not a tenant. The said issue will have to be decided by the Trial Court at 3 the time of final hearing of the application. If the 1st respondent does not establish the plea of tenancy, the application will have to be dismissed. 4. Notwithstanding the impugned order, the issue whether the 1st respondent is a tenant in respect of the suit premises remains open which will be decided after the parties adduce evidence. The observation made in paragraph 6 of the impugned order cannot be construed to mean that a finding has been recorded in favour of the 1st respondent on the plea of tenancy. The said issue remains expressly open to be decided on its own merits on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. 5. Subject to what is observed above, no case is made out for interference in the impugned order. The Civil Revision Application is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J)