1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.249 OF 2009 Suresh Damji Shah & ors ..Applicants V/s. Buddha Co-operative Hsg. ..Respondents Society Ltd. & anr. Mr.P.M.Shah, Advocate, for the Applicants Mr.V.A.Thorat, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b.M/s.Chitnis & Co., for Respondent No. 1 CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 7TH JULY, 2010 P.C. . This Civil Revision Application is directed against the Order passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay on 25th March, 2009 answering preliminary issues relating to pecuniary and inherent jurisdiction of the Court against the Applicants. 2. The Applicants are lessors of the property and Plaintiff is a lessee, who has entered into re-development Agreement with 2 Respondent No.2-original Defendant No.5. According to the Applicants, since re- development Agreement was worth more than Rs. 50,000/-, the City Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to try the suit. It was also stated that since the dispute between the Applicants and the Plaintiff pertained to lease executed by the Applicants in favour of the Plaintiff, it was a dispute between lessor and lessee amenable to the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act. 3. The learned Trial Judge, after hearing the parties, by an elaborate Order has answered both the issues relating to jurisdiction in favour of the Plaintiff holding that this Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. 4. The prayers in the plaint would be determinative of whether Civil Court could 3 grant those prayers or not. The prayers may be usefully reproduced as under :- (a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the Defendants Nos.1 to 4 or any of them or their agents, servants and any person claiming through or under them do not have any right to in any manner prevent and/or obstruct the re- development of the Suit Property described in Exhibit A to the Plaint by the Plaintiff or persons claiming through the Plaintiff in any manner whatsoever; (b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a permanent Order and injunction restraining the Defendant nos.1 to 4, or any of them or their agents, servants and any person claiming through or under them from in any manner preventing and/or obstructing and/or creating hindrance or impediment of any nature whatsoever in the re-development of the Suit Property by the Plaintiff or persons claiming through the Plaintiff in any manner whatsoever; 5. The learned Judge, City Civil Court rightly held that there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and developers and therefore, re-development Agreement or valuation of the said agreement cannot be determinative of the question of the valuation of the suit. In my 4 view, he has rightly held that the suit is simplicitor for an injunction to restrain the Applicants from re-development of the property. Therefore, he has rightly held that the suit is within pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, since re-development Agreement is not a subject matter of dispute between the parties. 6. As far as the question of ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court is concerned, landlord-tenant disputes are to be resolved under the provisions of Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act by the Court of Small Causes. It has to be mentioned that lease deed is referred to in the plaint only contextually. There is no dispute between the Plaintiff and Applicants about existence of the lease. The learned Counsel for the Applicants was asked as to how his clients are affected because of the re-development. The learned Counsel stated that Transfer Of 5 Development Rights could be loaded on the property. The building to be constructed on the property may be of double of the building which is already in existence. It is not clear how it is going to affect interest of the lessor. 7. In any case, if the lessor has any grievance he could invoke jurisdiction of Civil Court to have his grievance relating to the property decided. The question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court has to be determined on the basis of averments in the plaint and not on the basis of defence which may be raised. From the averments in the plaint the learned Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the dispute does not pertain to terms of lease deed and was not a landlord-tenant dispute. In view of this, it does not appear that the learned Judge erred in holding that Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. 6 8. Civil Revision Application is rejected. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)