-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 53 OF 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 53 OF 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 53 OF 2009 1. Shri Sandesh K. Donde and others .. Applicants. V/s. 1.Shri Keshav Krishna Moghe, since .. Respondents. deceased through LRs : 1.A.Smt Prabha Keshav Moghe & Ors. --- Mr.A.G.Damale with Mr.Kantilal Kanojia for the Applicants. Mr. C.T.Kriplani for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. S.K.Shinde i/by Mr. Sagar Kasar for the Respondent No.5 M/s.Saviles (P) Ltd., ---- CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 21st APRIL, 2009 DATED : 21st APRIL, 2009 DATED : 21st APRIL, 2009 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The applicants/plaintiffs filed suit against the respondents for declaration that they are tenants of the suit premises. It was the case of the applicants/plaintiffs that Keshav Krishna Moghe, predecessor-in-title of respondent inducted their predecessor as tenants in the suit premises. On the contrary, the case of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 was that -: 2 :- in fact their predecessor-in-title Keshav Krishna Moghe had entered into a leave and licence agreement with the respondent no.5 -Company. Both the lower courts below after appreciation of evidence recorded the finding that the leave and licence agreement was entered into between the respondent no.5 and the predecessor of respondent nos. 1 to 4, namely, Keshav Krishna Moghe and the predecessor of the applicants/plaintiffs, who claims to be the tenant was not signatory to the said agreement. In view of this finding, both the courts below held that the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the said suit as there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. The lower courts below further entered into merits of the matter and dismissed the applicants/plaintiffs suit. 3. Mr. Damle, the learned counsel for the applicants/ plaintiffs concedes that the lower court’s finding regarding jurisdiction is correct. He, however, submitted that the Small Causes Court having recorded the above finding could not have entered into merits of the matter and that the court should have simpliciter dismissed the suit on the ground of want of jurisdiction. 4. Mr. Kriplani, the learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute above position. He has no objection if the impugned decree is modified and suit is dismissed on -: 3 :- the ground of want of jurisdiction. 5. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I dispose of the civil revision application by passing following order. ORDER ORDER ORDER i. The impugned judgment and decree is modified to the extent that the applicants/plaintiffs’ suit being RAD Suit No. 1017 of 1989 filed for declaration that they are the tenants of demised premises is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 6. Needless to mention that the findings on merits will not come in the way of the applicants/plaintiffs. (R.V.MORE,J.) .....