spb/- 1 cra323-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 323 OF 2011 Nav-Sahyadri Griha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit ... Applicant. V/s. Pune Tennis Mandal & Ors. ... Respondent. --- Mr. Nitin Deshpande for the Applicant. Mr. S.A.Bhagwat for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. --- CORAM : G. S. GODBOLE, J. DATE : 09th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. : 1 Heard Mr. Borkar and Mr. Bhagwat for the respective parties. 2 Civil Suit No. 301 of 1998 was filed by the Trustees of the Respondent Trust in the Court of Small Causes at Pune for a permanent injunction and that unless the depriciated value of the suit premises is paid to the Plaintiffs Trust according to the Terms of the Agreement of Lease their possession should not be disturbed. Pending the Suit, on account of dispossession of the Decree, the Plaint was amended and prayer for possession was incorporated. Issue of jurisdiction was framed as preliminary issue and was decided by the Trial Court by Judgment and Order dated 15.07.2005 and the Suit was dismissed on the ground that spb/- 2 cra323-11.sxw notice under section 164 of the MCS Act, 1960 had not been given and that the Trustees did not sign and verify the Plaint and that the Court of Small Causes did not have jurisdiction since premises which were let out for club activity were not the premises governed by the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 as said purpose of letting was not one of the purposes as contemplated by the Rent Act. 3 Civil Appeal No. 691 of 2005 filed by the Plaintiffs has been allowed by the learned District Judge -17, Pune by impugned Judgment and Order dated 21.03.2011 by setting aside the findings on preliminary issue and the suit is remanded to the Trial Court for hearing on merits. 4 In view of the bar contained in Section 26(A)(3) of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 a further Appeal including an Appeal From Order would not lie despite the provisions of Order 43 Rule (1)(U) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 5 I have heard Mr. Deshpande for the Applicant and Mr. Bhagwat for the Respondents. Mr. Deshpande submits that letting out the property was one of the objects of the Applicant Society and hence, the subject matter of the suit is one touching the business of the Society and the Suit spb/- 3 cra323-11.sxw could not have been filed without serving statutory notice under section 164 of the MCS Act, 1960. It is submitted that all the Trustees ought to have been Plaintiffs. It is also urged that since Bombay Rent Act was not applicable and since the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 does not apply to open land, according to the Applicant, once the possession is taken by the Respondent, the Court of Small Causes does not have jurisdiction. 6 I have carefully considered the submissions and none of them have any merit. Dispossession of the Plaintiffs without following due procedure prescribed by law during the pendency of the Suit is admitted. Dispossession of a tenant or lessee without following due procedure prescribed by law cannot be the business of the Co-operative Society. Hence, notice u/s. 164 of M.C.S. Act, 1960 was not required. Even otherwise, considering the nature of the suit as initially filed, it can not be said that the dispute is one touching the business of the Society. A tenant claiming declaration of tenancy rights and injunction on the ground that protection of a special statute viz. Bombay Rent Act, 1947 is available, is not required to serve a notice u/s. 164 of the M.C.S. Act, 1960. Hence, the first submission is rejected. spb/- 4 cra323-11.sxw 7 The second submission regarding alleged requirement of law that all the Trustees must be Plaintiffs has no substance. One of the Trustees who did not want to join as Plaintiff had been joined as the Defendant. There is no dispute that all the Trustees were parties to the Suit. No one can force a person to become Plaintiff against his wish. There is no merit in the submission. There is no material infirmity in the findings of the District Court in that regard. 8 The third submission regarding jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court also does not appeal to me. The Respondents do not admit that Rent Act does not apply to the suit premises but admit the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant. Assuming that the Rent Act does not apply; which issue will have to be decided by the Trial Court; in view of the provisions of Section 26 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887; the Small Causes Court will have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the premises are situated in Pune. No other submission on Jurisdiction is advanced. No error of jurisdiction is committed. 9 Civil Revision Application is dismissed. [G.S.GODBOLE, J.] .....