1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5374/2009. ( Indu Mohan Hansles . -: versus :- Dr. Satishchand L. Verma ) 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. DATED : JANUARY 11, 2010. Heard Shri S.G. Deshpande, learned counsel for petitioner/tenant and Shri M.Shareef, learned counsel for respondent. It is an admitted position that one Satyarani, was the original owner of suit premises and the present petitioner was her tenant. She paid rent to Satyarani till 2005, when later expired. The present respondent claimed to inherit that property on the basis of Will Deed. He filed proceedings for eviction of petitioner and in it, moved an application under Order 15A of Civil Procedure Code, requiring the petitioner / tenant to deposit the monthly rent. That application was granted by the Trial Court on 28.03.2007 and Misc. Civil Appeal No.106/2007 filed against it has been dismissed by the Adhoc District Judge-4 on 08.10.2007. It is to be noted that the respondent / landlord has not been permitted to 2 withdraw the amount so directed to be deposited. The petitioner claims title in herself on the basis of Gift executed by Satyarani in her favour. She has filed Civil Suit independently questioning the Will claimed to have been executed by Satyarani in favour of respondent / landlord. Gift in favour of petitioner is also unregistered. In view of this title dispute, application under Section 9A of Civil Procedure Code [Maharashtra amendment] was moved by the petitioner before the Small Causes Court. Against adverse order therein. The petitioner then preferred Revision No. 220/2008. On 2.11.2009 the District Judge-5 Nagpur has allowed that revision and matter has been placed again before the Small Causes Court for consideration under Section 9A of C.P.C. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel in this background has contended that, as Small Causes Court cannot go into title dispute, the proceeding before the Small Causes Court ought to have been transferred to Civil Court for trial along with the Civil Suit filed by the petitioner. He has placed reliance upon the judgment reported at 1997 AIHC 99 (Shashikant Karbotkar .vrs. Suresh R. Karbotkar). There this Court found that, the lease deed itself was alleged to be manipulated and it has been held that Order 15A would apply in cases whee lessor admits lease in favour of defendant. The alternative claim of plaintiff there, that defendant should be directed to deposit the royalty amount or court should strike out the defence was found not covered by the said provision. It is apparent that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the Satyarani and petitioner, is not in dispute and respondent is claiming to be successor of 3 Satyarani. In other judgment reported at 2007 [2] AIR Bom R 418 (Radheshyam .vrs. Tuljaprasad and others], this Court has found that, when the plaintiff did not approach the Court with a case, that he is lessor and did not point out monthly rent, the order striking of defence could not be sustained. Here again, for reasons recorded above, this judgment is not applicable. It is to be noted that the Application under Section 9A vide Exh.53 is to be reconsidered by the Small Causes Court, in obedience to the order of the Appellate Court dated 2.11.2009. The Trial Court has only directed deposit of amount equal to monthly rent, which petitioner was paying to Satyarani and has not permitted the respondent to withdraw it. In these circumstances, no case is made out warranting any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.