( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 83 OF 2006 Anilkumar s/o. Kapurchand Sancheti and anr. .. Applicants Versus Ku. Suvarna d/o. Deoraj Mukhate .. Respondent Shri S.S. Ladda, Advocate for the applicants. Shri S.V. Gangapurwala, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 07.10.2009 P.C. :- 1. This Civil Revision Application is filed being aggrieved by rejection of application Exh.15, in Regular Civil Suit No. 314 of 2006, by 5th Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad, on 04.08.2006. The application was for return of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Heard Adv. Shri S.S. Ladda for the applicants and Adv. Shri S.V. Gangapurwala for the respondent. The case of ( 2 ) the present respondent, who is admittedly tenant is that the plaintiff being tenant has every right to remain in possession till she is evicted by lawful means under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The landlord is under obligation to keep the premises in tenantable state of repairs, but the defendants who are landlord are damaging the premises and making it insecure. Therefore, the ultimate prayer made is as follows:- “A] A decree for perpetual injunction may be passed restraining the defendants, their servants, labours, contractor, or any person on their behalf causing damage or demolish the eastern portion of house plot No.12 C.T.S. No. 19294 in possession of the plaintiff which consists of 2 bed rooms, one hall, kitchen room, bath room and latrine and storing debris and waste material in open space, close the water lap, hurdle in common passage, damaging or demolition of compound wall, damage the roof more specifically shown in the map attached with plaint as part and parcel of plaint, situate at Pagariya colony, Raj Nagar, Railway Station Road, Aurangabad.” 3. No doubt, the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, gives protection to the tenant against wrongful eviction, but after having given anxious consideration to the contents of the plaint, in my opinion, it is the suit for perpetual injunction under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. ( 3 ) Adv. Shri Ladda drew my attention to Section 33 (1) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Said sub-section is as follows :- “33(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, but subject to the provisions of Chapter VIII, and notwithstanding that by reason of the amount of the claim, or for any other reason, the suit or proceeding would not, but for this provision, be within its jurisdiction, - (a) in Brihan-Mumbai, the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai, (b) in any area for which a Court of Small Causes is established under the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, such court, and (c) elsewhere, the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) having jurisdiction in the area in which the premises are situate or, if there is no such Civil Judge, the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) having ordinary jurisdiction, shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try any suit or proceeding between a landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises and to decide any application made under this Act (other than the applications which are to be decided by the State Government or an officer authorised by it or the Contempt Authority) and subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), no other court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any such suit, proceeding, or application or to deal with such claim or question.” 4. Thus, the Courts under the Maharashtra Rent Control ( 4 ) Act, 1999, are given powers to entertain and try any suit or proceedings between landlord and tenant relating to recovery of rent or possession of any premises and to decide any application made under the Act. Present suit is filed neither for recovery of rent nor filed by the landlord for recovery possession. It is not disputed that the tenant is in possession of the property. The plaintiff’s case is not that the plaintiff/tenant had been evicted from the premises and she wants back the possession. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this is case under the Specific Relief Act and ordinary Civil Court has jurisdiction. The order of the Trial Court cannot be said to be wrong. 5. Adv. Shri Laddda argued that the suit should be heard by the Civil Judge, who is conferred with powers of Small Causes Court. He inquired and found that the learned Civil Judge who passed the order was not invested with the powers of the Provincial Small Causes Courts. He referred to Section 33 (1) as reproduced above. It may be noted that sub-section (b) refers to those areas for which Courts of Small Causes are established under the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. Such Courts are established at Nagpur and ( 5 ) Pune. Therefore, any suit under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, at such places will have to be heard by the Courts of Small Causes, elsewhere, case would come under clause (c) irrespective of fact if any individual Civil Judge is invested with powers under the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. Phrase is used in Clauses (a), (b) & (c) is ‘Court of ......’. 6. This aspect is dealt with by this Court in order dated 07.08.2009 passed in C.R.A. No. 82 of 2009 (Santosh Pannalal Jaiswal V/s. Lakhbirsingh Sardarsingh Chhabda). In that case, this Court has also occasion to consider the case of Bhola Wajareshwar Sethi V/s. The Hotel Nandanvan Pvt. Ltd.,, 2000 (1) Bom.C.R.124. 7. The facts of the cited case in Mansukhlal Dhanraj Jain and Ors., V/s. Eknath Vithal Ogale, AIR 1995 S.C.1102, were different. In that case injunction was sought for restraining licensor from effecting forcible recovery of possession of licensee. The suit was filed in the Bombay City Civil Court instead of Small Causes Court. It was held that City Civil Court has no jurisdiction in view of Section ( 6 ) 41 (1) of the Small Cause Courts Act. 8. Another case cited in this respect is Mrs. Kutubunisa Begum w/o. Mahemood Ur. Rahman V/s. Mrs. Bilquees Jahan Begum w/o. Mohd Azizuddin Siddiqui, 1996 (2) Bom.C.R. 324. In said case the Court was dealing with the question whether the provisions of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, prevails over the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. In this view of the matter, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/SEP09/cra83.06