1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 100 OF 2010 (Naznilofar Nassaruddin wd/o Sk. Hussain & Ors. vs. Gopal Kirana Store) 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. MARCH 25, 2010. Heard Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner. The suit for eviction from open land has been filed by the landlord against the tenant before the Small Causes Court. The same was challenged contending that because of Section 26(2) of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887, the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction and hence the plaint deserved to be returned under Order 7 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court rejected that application. The present petitioner then filed appeal under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and that appeal has also been rejected. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel argues that as landlord himself has stated that the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, are not applicable and suit premises are open land, the General law of the land viz. Code of Civil Procedure applies and hence Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction. He has relied 2 upon the provisions of Section 26(2), Chapter IV-A added to Provincial Small Causes Court Act, by Maharashtra Amendment in support of his contention. The provisions of Chapter IV-A are added with effect from 01.01.1985 and the jurisdiction to deal with dispute between the landlord and tenant has been given to Small Causes Court under Section 26(1) thereof and sub-section (2) makes an exception and suit for recovery of possession of premises to which Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955, the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1919 or the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, are exempted from cognizance under Section 26(1) of the Act. Thus specific Acts are followed by “or any law for the time being in force, apply”, by relying upon this residuary provision. The contention is as CPC applies, the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction. It is apparent that the residuary laws mentioned above do not cover CPC but it contemplates laws of the types mentioned in entries preceding the residuary entry. No case is, therefore, made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.