: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.503 OF 2009 Amar Bahadur Lalpratapsingh & anr. ... Applicant V/s. Raisaheb Vanslochan Singh & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.U.S.R. Singh for Applicant Mr.S.B. Amin for Respondent Nos.1 & 4 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DECEMBER 9, 2009 P.C.: 1. The landlords ie. The applicants herein filed a suit against the respondents for possession of the suit premises on the ground that the licence in favour of the respondents had been terminated in accordance with law. The suit was decreed and the defendant respondents were directed to hand over peaceful possession of the suit premises. Aggrieved by this order, the defendants preferred an appeal. That appeal was decided on 2.8.2003. The appellate Court held that the plaint should be returned to the plaintiff to be presented in a Court of competent jurisdiction. This order was passed in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh Dwarkadas Mehra vs.Indravati Dwarkadas Mehra (2001) 4 Mh.L.J. 483 where the Division bench had held that the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit if the defendants were the gratuitous licencees. : 2 : 2. Being aggrieved by that order, the applicant has preferred the present civil revision application. 3. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha vs. Manharbala Jeram Damodar & Ors., 2007(5) Mh.L.J. 341 has overruled the judgment in the case of Ramesh Dwarkadas Mehra vs.Indravati Dwarkadas Mehra (supra) and held that the expression licensee used in section 41(1) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act does not derive its meaning from the expression licensee used in subsection 4A of Section 5 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act. It has been held that the expression licencee would include a gratuitous licencee. Thus, it is the Small Causes Court which would have jurisdiction to decide the cases where a gratuitous licencee is to be evicted. 4. In my opinion, therefore, the judgment of the appellate Court directing that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for being presented to the competent Court will have to be set aside. The trial Court had decreed the suit and, therefore, the appeal preferred by the defendants will have to be heard on merits. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Application is allowed. The appellate Court shall decide the appeal on merits as it has now been held that the Small Causes Court has jurisdiction to decide the dispute between a licensor and the gratuitous licensee.