1 wp-5841-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi WRIT PETITION NO. 5841 OF 2010 Mrs. Bhanumati Kesrichand Jhaveri & Ors. ...Petitioners (Orig.plaintiffs) vs. M/s. New Era Fabrics Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents (Orig.Defts 1-6) Mr.E.P.Bharucha, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr. P.K.Vyas,Advocate, for the petitioners. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 19th October, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents. 2. To state in brief, the petitioners had filed T. E & R. Suit No.48/62 of 2009 for eviction and possession against the respondents. According to the petitioner/landlord, the paid up share capital of the respondent No.1/original tenant was Rs.1 crore or more and therefore the tenant did not have protection of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Therefore the suit was filed before the Small Cause Court under the Presidency Small Causes Court Act. The defendants raised 2 wp-5841-10.sxw the question of jurisdiction contending that the paid-up share capital is less than Rs. crore. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners states that after filing of the suit, amendment was made by the defendants reducing its paid up share capital below Rs.1 crore with sole intention to contend that the Small Cause Court under the Presidency Small Causes Court Act does not have jurisdiction in this matter. Certain applications were made for interim relief by the plaintiffs. The learned Senior Counsel also makes a statement that the plaintiffs do not press any of those applications and therefore Sec. 9A, CPC has no application. The trial Court, after haring the parties, passed a detailed order on 2.6.2010 directing that the matter be posted for hearing on the preliminary issue about jurisdiction. That order is challenged in the present petition. 3. Even if Sec. 9A has no application, if there are mixed questions of law and fact and if the Court is of the opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force as per Order XIV Rule 2, CPC. In view of this, I see no reason to interfere in the impugned order. However, the contention of the petitioner that the paid up share capital of the respondent was reduced by passing a resolution after filing of the suit is a fact about which the evidence may be 3 wp-5841-10.sxw required to be led by the parties 4. In view of the above, the petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that both parties shall be allowed to lead necessary evidence in respect of the issue of jurisdiction. 5. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this Order. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)