IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL FROM ORDER FROM ORDER FROM ORDER NO.507 OF 2008 NO.507 OF 2008 NO.507 OF 2008 IN IN IN CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.583 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.583 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.583 OF 2008 Smt. Rukmini R. Ambtre & Ors. ..Appellants / Orig. Plaintiffs V/s. M/s. Padma Calico Engraving Works ..Respondent/ Orig.Defendant Shri V.R. Tripathi i/by M/s.V.R. Tripathi & Association for the Appellants Shri S.G. Bhandari for Respondent CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 5TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. : . By the impugned order, the learned Judge has dismissed the Appellant’s suit, as not maintainable in view of Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts, 1882. In this regard, the learned Judge has relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Arun V. Subhedar Vs. Arun V. Subhedar Vs. Arun V. Subhedar Vs. Shyamacharan Shyamacharan Shyamacharan Tiwari Tiwari Tiwari. In paragraph 6, the learned Judge has held as under:- "In the present case, ex facie a perusal of the Plaint would show that paragraph 1 of the Plaint proceeds on the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant, albeit in respect of a piece of open land admeasuring 10’ x 10’. Paragraph 1 of the Plaint reads thus: "1. The Plaintiff states that he is tenant of an open space admeasuring about 10’ x 10’, next to Shop No.8 and 9, abutting on N.S. Road, Pandurang Niwas, Mulund (West), Mumbai-400 080, at monthly rent of Rs.26.75, hereinafter referred to as the ’Suit Premises’ and owner of a Pan bidi stall situated and constructed on the suit premises. The Plaintiff states that the defendants are landlords of the suit premises." The suit has been instituted by the first respondent on the basis that he is in continuous, exclusive and legal possession of the premises (paragraph 13) and on the apprehension that he would be forcibly dispossessed by the petitioner without due process of law. The reliefs that have been sought in the suit are: (i) A declaration that the petitioner has no right to disturb or dispossess the first respondent from the suit premises in any manner save and except by due process of law; and (ii) A permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from disturbing and/or interfering with the premises or the possession of the first respondent in respect thereof save and except by due process of law. Each of the requirements that are set out in section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, is fulfilled. The suit is a suit between a landlord and a tenant. The suit relates to the recovery of possession of immovable property situated in Greater Mumbai. The foundation of the suit is an apprehension of the first respondent that the petitioner would interfere with his possession without due process of law. Such a suit is clearly maintainable before the Court of Small Causes." 2. It was contended that the judgment is not correct. The judgment however, is binding on me. In the circumstances, the Appeal from Order is dismissed.