1 cra 139.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 139 OF 2011 Balasaheb S/o Kondiram Kolte .. Applicant Versus Dr. Amrutlal S/o Chandanmal Lune .. Respondent Shri Y. S. Choudhari, Advocate for the Applicant. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2011. PER COURT : . The applicant is the defendant and also the owner of the property bearing House No. 485/1. The present respondent is the original plaintiff has sold the said property to the petitioner. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of amount of a period prior to the execution of the sale deed on the ground that the said amount has not been paid. The present petitioner filed its written statement and contended that the plaintiff is claiming the license fee of the period prior to the execution of the sale deed and as such, the Civil Court would not have jurisdiction to try and entertain the said suit in view of provisions of Section 2 cra 139.11 24 r/w Section 39 and 42 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999. The petitioner filed an application for framing an issue of jurisdiction as preliminary issue and to try the same. The Trial Judge rejected the said application holding that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction. Aggrieved thereby the present revision application has been filed. 2. Shri Y. D. Choudhari, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Trial Judge was in error in appreciating the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999. The said provisions read conjointly have an overriding effect over the provisions of any other statute. As such, whenever the dispute would be for recovery of arrears of license fee, it is only the competent authority who will have the jurisdiction to try and entertain the dispute. According to the learned counsel Section 39 and 42 which are part of Chapter 8 of the said Act lay down that the provisions of the said chapter have an overriding effect over all other statutes. Section 42 is regarding the special provision for making an application to competent authority and in view of said specific provision the Civil Court could not have exercised its jurisdiction. 3 cra 139.11 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the provisions and the dispute. The Trial Judge has held that the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 does not apply to the area where the said property is situated of which dues are been claimed by the plaintiff. There is nothing on record to show that the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 applies to the said area. When the act itself does not apply, no question arises of applicability of any provision of that enactment to the dispute. The provisions relied by the petitioner can be read into only if the act is applicable. When the Act itself is not applicable, then it would be too farfetched to submit that the provisions of said enactment shall have to be read into for determining the jurisdiction of the Court. The provisions are not dehors the statute. 4. In the light of above, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Judge in rejecting the application and passing impugned order. The civil revision application as such is dismissed with no costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/June 11