1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Civil Revision Application No. 91 of 2009 1] Prasanna S/o Baburao Tidke, Aged 34 years, Occu.- Business, 2] Prashant S/o Baburao Tidke, Aged 30 years, Occu. - Business, Both R/o Khosla Apartment, Hindustan Colony, Amravati Road, Nagpur. …...APPLICANTS ...VERSUS... 1] Rohit S/o Navin Solanki, Aged about 54 years, Occu.- Private job. 2] Smt. Aruna Wd/o Shashikant Solanki, Aged about 58 years, Occu.- Household, Both r/o Plot No.58, Ambazary Lay out, Hingna Road, Nagpur. 3] Prafulla S/o Shriram Narayan Kataria, Aged Major, Occu.- Business, R/o Vivekanand Ghat, Kothi Bazar Road, Behind Dr. Dubey Clinic, Hoshangabad (M.P.) 4] The Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, NMC Office, Civil Lines, Nagpur. …..RESPONDENTS =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. A.B.Patil, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. N.A.Vyawahare, Advocate for respondents no.1 & 2. Mr. V.M.Kitey, Advocate for Respondent no.3. Mrs. S.S.Jachak, Advocate for Respondent no.4. 2 C ORAM : Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J. DATED : 05th February, 2010. 1] The Civil Revision Application challenges the order dated 30th October, 2009, passed by the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, on the application at Exh.24 filed by the applicant. By the said application, the applicant had sought two prayers, firstly to raise a question as regards jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit as a preliminary issue ; and secondly, to direct respondents no.1 and 2 to pay proper Court Fees as per the relief claimed by them. 2] By the impugned order, the application Exh.24 came to be rejected holding that the suit filed for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, despite undisputed relationship as landlord and tenant between the parties, was maintainable in the Civil Court. As regards the valuation of the suit, the learned trial Court did not interfere with the same, with following observations - “Plaintiff has not prayed in the suit that he is the owner of disputed property. And plaintiff not being the owner of the disputed property, he cannot decide the market value of the property and that is not expected from plaintiff”. 3 3] The challenge of the applicants to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act between the landlord and tenant must fail in view of the language of Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and the direct decision of our High Court in Faijulbee Hajeel and others ..vs.. Yadali Amir Shaikh Ansari, reported in 1984 Mh.L.J. 268. The Division Bench of our High Court has held in the said decision that as the question of title of the parties, including the title of a tenant, does not arise in such a case, the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, which is based on the allegation of forcible dispossession alone for recovery of possession of immovable property, continues to be within the jurisdiction of Civil Court. 4] However, as regards rejection of the second prayer of the applicant in the application at Exh.24, the learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 fairly concedes that the valuation of the suit, as made under Section 6(xii) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, is not correct and that these respondents ought to have valued the suit under Schedule-I, Article 2 read with Article 1 of the Bombay 4 Court Fees Act. Therefore, the suit is required to be valued accordingly and appropriate Court Fee thereon paid. 5] The learned trial Court is, therefore, directed to hold an enquiry into the valuation of the suit based on the value of the premises of which respondents no.1 and 2 seek possession, in view of Schedule-I, Article 2 read with Article 1 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 and pass appropriate orders for payment of court fee. 6] With these directions, the Civil Revision Application is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE. Diwale