1 W.P.No.6665/11 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.6665 OF 2011. 1. Vinay Bhila Suryawanshi, Age 48 years, Occ.Barber, R/o Tq. and Dist.Nandurbar. 2. Anandrao Bhila Suryawanshi (Deleted since dead) ... Petitioners. Versus 1. Goverdhandas Laldas Wani, since deceased - deleted. 2. Aniruddha Laldas Wani, Since deceased through L.Rs. 2-A) Vishnukant Aniruddha Wani, Age 46 years,Occ.Business. 2-B) Shrikumar Aniruddha Wani, Age 43 years, Occ.Business, 2-C) Rajendra Aniruddha Wani, Age 38 years, Occ.Business, All R/o Tup Bazar, Nandurbar, Tq. & Dist.Nandurbar. 2-D) Sau. Prathma Sureshbhai Shah, Age 50 years, Occ.Household, R/o Mumbai. 2 W.P.No.6665/11 2-E) Sau. Surekha Sameerkumar Shroff, Age 48 years, Occ.Household, R/o Ahmadabad, Dist.Ahmadabad, State : Gujarat. ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.S.Abhyankar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.P.Wani, advocate for Respondent Nos.2-A to 2-E. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Reserved on : 29.09.2011. Pronounced on: 11.11.2011. JUDGMENT : 1. The present Respondent/landlord instituted Regular Civil Suit for possession against the present petitioner/tenant on the grounds enumerated as per the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short Bombay Rent Act), in the year 1990. The said suit was instituted in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Nandurbar. The Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Nandurbar passed the decree in favour of the landlord directing the tenant to hand over the possession. The 3 W.P.No.6665/11 tenant preferred an appeal before the District Court. The District Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The tenant challenged the said judgment of the District Court before this Court by way of a Writ Petition. The said Writ Petition came to be dismissed. The tenant preferred Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court. The Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition confirming the judgment passed by this Court. 2. The tenant inspite of having suffered decree of eviction upto Apex Court did not deliver the possession of the suit premises to the landlord. The landlord was constrained to file execution proceedings seeking possession. The tenant stifled the said execution petition by filing objection petition Exh.19 and 29. The executing Court dismissed the said objections. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant/Judgment debtor preferred appeal before the District Court. The District Court dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 4 W.P.No.6665/11 3. Though the objection petitions were filed on multifarious grounds, such as the legal heirs did not have any locus-standi to file the execution proceedings, the concept of partial eviction is not considered and the Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) has no jurisdiction to pass the decree. Mr.Abhyankar, learned counsel for the tenant/Judgment debtor/petitioner canvassed his arguments on the ground of jurisdiction only. 4. According to Mr.Abhyankar, learned counsel for the tenant/Judgment debtor, the 2nd Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Nandurbar has no jurisdiction to entertain the execution proceedings as there is no Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) at Nandurbar. The learned counsel further contended that the original decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Nandurbar is without jurisdiction in view of Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act. In absence of the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) was Rent Court and ought to have conducted the original suit and any administrative order referring the suit to Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) 5 W.P.No.6665/11 could not have vested the Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) with jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel, the said decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) is a nullity as it is passed by a Court inherently lacking jurisdiction. The learned counsel to buttress his submission relied on the following dictum of the Apex Court and this Court. i) "Laxmidas Morarji (D) By Lrs. Vs. Miss Behrose Darab Madan" reported in 2009 SAR (Civil) 1030; ii) "Sabavva Kom Hanmappa Simpiger Vs. Basappa Andaneppa Chiniwar" reported in 1954 Bombay Law Reporter (Vol.57) 261; iii) "Mehersingh Sethi Vs. Khurshed Nadirshaw Satarawalla" reported in 1954 Bombay Law Reporter (Vol.56) 540; iv) "Babulal Bhuramal Vs.Nandram Shivram" reported in 1958 Bombay Law Reporter (Vol.60) 954; v) "Sarwan Kumar and another Vs. Madan Lal Aggarwal" reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 6 W.P.No.6665/11 1475; vi) "Sushil Kumar Mehta Vs. Gobind Ram Bohra (dead) through his L.Rs" reported in (1990) 1 Supreme Court Cases 193; vii) "Vijaykumar S/o Vinayakrao Pathak and another Vs. Madhukar S/o Dinkar Chitale" reported in 2002 (5) Mh.L.J.415; viii) "Dattatraya Krishna Jangam Vs. Jairam Ganesh Gore" reported in 1964 Bombay Law Reporter (Vol.66) 645; ix) "Appasaheb Kalgonda Patil Vs. James Luchas Ranbhise" reported in 1980 Bom. R.C.166; x) "Radheshyam S/o Zumbarlal Chandak Vs. District Judge, Amravati and another" reported in 2011 (1) Mh.L.J.399; xi) "Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka Vs. Jasjit Singh and others" reported in (1993) 2 Supreme Court Cases 507; xii) "Mulraj Vs. Murti Raghunathji Maharaj" reported in AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1386; xiii) "Advani Oerlikon Ltd. Vs. Machindra Govind Makasare and others" reported in 2011(2) Mh.L.J.916. 7 W.P.No.6665/11 5. Per contra, Mr.Wani, learned counsel for the landlord submits that the decree passed by Joint Civil Judge(J.D.) is legal and proper and does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction. The learned counsel further submitted that the tenant had not raised the issue of jurisdiction before any of the Courts and for the first time, the tenant/Judgment debtor can not be permitted to raise the issue of jurisdiction in execution proceedings. According to the learned counsel, the Civil Judge (S.D.) has got power to transfer the suit to the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), in view of Section 28 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act. Even otherwise, it does not make any difference if the suit is decided by Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.) as no prejudice is caused to the tenant and the same procedure is followed. The learned counsel to buttress his submission relied on the following judgments of the Apex Court and this Court. i) "Sureshchandra Daulal Soni Vs. Devichand Hiralal Gandhi" W.P.No.1816/2004 decided on 4.4.2007; 8 W.P.No.6665/11 ii) "Subhash Vasant Kulkarni Vs. Vasantrao Mahadeo Dhatlagna" reported in 1986 Bom.R.C. 137; iii) "Municipal Commissioner, Calcutta and others Vs. Salil Kumar Banerjee and others" reported in (2000) 4 Supreme Court Cases 108; iv) "Rafique Bibi (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Sayed Waliuddin (Dead) by L.Rs. and others" reported in 2004 (2) Mh.L.J. 590; v) "Narhari Shivram Shet Narvekar Vs. Pannalal Umediram" reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 164; vi) "Ranchhodlal Vallabhdas Vs. Mahendrakumar Ambalal" reported in 1956 Bombay 481; vii) "Smt.Savitribai and another Vs. Vithal Hari Petakar" reported in AIR 1981 Bombay 430. In the present petition, the petitioner had restricted his arguments on the issue of jurisdiction only. The moot question is whether the decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) can be said to be nullity. 6. In some of the Rent Legislations, the 9 W.P.No.6665/11 dispute between the landlord and tenant is required to be decided by the Rent Controller but in the areas where the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 apply, the dispute is required to be decided by the Civil Court, by virtue of Section 28 of the said Act i.e. either by the Court of Small Causes or the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) or the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.). For Nandurbar Region, the said Bombay Rent Act applies. The same is an undisputed fact. 7. It is also undisputed that the tenant never raised an objection about jurisdiction of the Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Nandurbar to decide the said suit. The tenant had submitted to jurisdiction of the said Court. Even in an appeal before the District Court, the tenant did not raise the issue of jurisdiction. The tenant also did not raise the issue of jurisdiction before this Court nor before the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition and for the first time the objection about jurisdiction is raised in the execution proceedings. Section 28 lays down that 10 W.P.No.6665/11 the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) having jurisdiction in the area in which the premises are situated shall have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute. If there is no such Civil Judge (J.D.), the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) having ordinary jurisdiction shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try any suit or proceedings between the landlord and tenant. Harping on said provision, the learned counsel Mr.Abhyankar, tried to canvass that there is no establishment of the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) at Nandurbar, so also Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) can not be equated with the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) and as such it is only the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), who would get the jurisdiction and as such the decree is a nullity. 8. Whether the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) is established at Nandurbar or there is establishment of Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) as is contended by the learned counsel for the landlord is a disputed question of fact which can not be gone into in the execution proceedings. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the decree 11 W.P.No.6665/11 was passed by the Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) - a Civil Judge and the procedure for trial of the suit either by a Civil Judge (S.D.) or a Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) or a Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) is same. The tenant has not brought on record any prejudice caused to him. The Full Bench of this Court in a case of "Ranchhodlal Vallabhdas Vs. Mahendrakumar Ambalal" referred supra, referring to Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act and the provisions of the Bombay Civil Court Act, has held that the principal Judge of that Court can refer case to any other Judge of the Court for trial. The Full Bench has further held that in Section 28, there is no indication whatsoever that the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) to which suits have to be transferred U/s 28(2)(a) has to function in any different manner than it would function as the ordinary Court, or that the procedure which has got to be followed has to be any different procedure. The Full Bench further held as under : "Once the Court is seized of the matter transferred to it by the 12 W.P.No.6665/11 District Court under Section 28(2) (a), the Principal Judge of that Court is vested with the power conferred upon him under Section 23, para 5. Therefore, in our opinion, on the transfer of a rent suit from the Small Cause Court by the District Court under Section 28(2) (a) to the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, the Principal Judge of that Court has the power to refer that case to any one of his colleagues who has been appointed to assist him in the disposal of the cases on his file. The colleague may be a joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, or he may be a Civil Judge, Junior Division, because not only the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, but also the Civil Judges, Junior Division, are Judges of one and the same Court, the Court presided over by the Civil Judge, Senior 13 W.P.No.6665/11 Division." 9. The Division Bench of this Court in a case of Smt.Savitribai and another Vs. Vithal Hari Petakar" referred supra has held that the Civil Judge is not a persona designata U/s 28(1) (b). It is further held as under : "The contention that it is only if there is no Civil Judge (Junior Division) appointed to assist the Principal Judge that the Civil Judge (Senior Division) or a Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, can have the jurisdiction to try the suit is not sustainable, for, the expression "if there is no such Civil Judge" used in Section 28(1)(b) means "if there is no Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division)". The qualifying word "such" is of significance. It has relation to the preceding words, viz., "the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division" and consequently the 14 W.P.No.6665/11 expression "such Civil Judge" means the Court presided over by the Civil Judge, Junior Division. If one were to accept the narrow interpretation as contended, it would lead to absurd results." It is further held that : "The provisions of Section 28(1) (b) read in the light of the scheme of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869, must clearly mean that where there are no Courts of Civil Judge, Junior Division, established under the Civil Courts Act, the suits or proceedings under the Rent Act would be triable by the Principal Judge of the Court, viz., the Civil Judge (Senior Division), or by any of the Joint Judges whether he be a Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, or Senior Division, to whom the matter has been referred 15 W.P.No.6665/11 to by the Principal Judge." 10. In view of the above dictum of the Full Bench and Division Bench of this Court, I need not go into the controversy about the interpretation of Section 28(1)(b). Suffice it to hold that the suit can be transferred for disposal either to Civil Judge (S.D.) or to Civil Judge (J.D.) and the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) or the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) is not referred as persona designata and the suit can be tried by the other Civil Judges. 11. In view of the above, it will have to be held that the decree passed does not suffer from any inherent lack of jurisdiction as it is not the case of inherent lack of jurisdiction, the objection regarding jurisdiction can not be entertained in execution. 12. The Writ Petition as such being sans merit, is dismissed. However, there shall be no 16 W.P.No.6665/11 order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp666511