1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1302 of 2010 PETITIONERS : 1] M/s Horizon Trading Corporation, Narang Towers, Civil Lines, Nagpur, through its partner Sanjay S/o Surinder Chohan. 2] Sanjay Surinder Chohan, Aged about 27 years, Occu. Business, 3] Ajay S/o Surinder Chohan, Aged about 37 years, Occu. Business, Both Nos.2 and 3 are carrying on business at Narang Towers, Civil Lines, Nagpur. ..VERSUS.. RESPONDENT : ABCO, Villa Hortense, New Colony, Nagpur, through its Proprietor, Mr. Aarmin Farrokh Bajani Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MARCH 18, 2010. Heard finally Mr. S.P.Palshikar, learned counsel for the petitioners. The respondent has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 489 of 2006 before the Small Causes Court at Nagpur for ejectment and possession against the petitioner/tenant after terminating its tenancy by the notice dated 06.11.2006. The petitioners filed objection therein and contended that the Small Causes 2 Court had no territorial jurisdiction. The question about territorial jurisdiction was gone into by the Small Causes Court in the light of provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and it held that as suit premises are located at Wadi within Gram Panchayat area, it has no territorial jurisdiction. The respondent/plaintiff filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 201 of 2009 styling it as appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the said appeal has been allowed by the District Judge-11, Nagpur on 15.12.2009. The learned District Judge has found that the Small Causes Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter because of the Notification dated 18.12.1958 and therefore, has remanded the matter back to the Small Causes Court. Learned Advocate Mr. Palshikar has argued that suit does not disclose the provision under which the Small Causes Court was approached and in that background application of mind by the trial court is not erroneous or perverse. He further states that law does not prescribe any appeal against the order of Small Causes Court and still the lower appellate court has held appeal maintainable under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure. He, therefore, contends that the appellate court has not treated the suit as one under Section 26 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. With the assistance of learned counsel, I have perused both the orders. It is apparent that the suit as filed is not filed under any rent control legislation as it does not refer to any such enactment. It only mentions termination of tenancy 3 and requests for restoration of possession. The suit is obviously under Section 26 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. The notification considered by the learned lower appellate court in paragraph 19 of its judgment clearly shows that the Small Causes Court at Nagpur has territorial jurisdiction over revenue taluka of Nagpur. Wadi Gram Panchayat is within that revenue taluka. The finding of lower appellate court about Small Causes Court possessing territorial jurisdiction, therefore, is neither erroneous nor perverse. The provisions of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 have been amended in 1985 and all disputes between the landlord and tenant are subjected to jurisdiction of Small Causes Court. Accordingly, vide Section 26-A the appeal against any order passed by that Court is also provided before the District Court. The appeal filed, therefore, though styled as under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is an appeal under the said enactment and was rightly held maintainable before the District Court. The reasons given by the learned District Judge while holding appeal maintainable, are not very relevant. No case is, therefore, made out by the petitioners warranting interference in the matter in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Diwale