1502cra3.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 3 OF 2011 (M/s Cafe Vrindavan Vs. Salim Bhai Vali & others) ........................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ...................................................................................................................................................................... Shri Shyam Dewani, Advocate for the applicant. Shri M. G. Bhangde, Senior Counsel with Shri V. V. Bhangde, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : R. K. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 15 FEBRUARY, 2011. This revision application challenges order below Exh. 10 dated 23/12/2010 passed by the Small Causes Court, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 374 of 2010. By this order the application (Exh.10) of the petitioner under Section 9-A read with Order VII Rule 11(d) and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for dismissal of the suit on the ground that it is barred by the provisions of Section 7 C.P.C. read with Sections 15 and 26 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, has been rejected. It has been held in para 16 of the order that as per the provisions contained in Section 33, the dispute regarding possession, is covered by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 2000. The question involved is; whether the suit is covered by Section 26 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act read with Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 2000, so as to confer jurisdiction upon the Small Cause Court to entertain, try and decide suit in question. 1502cra3.11.odt 2/2 Section 26 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act uses the phraseology: “suits between landlord and tenants, relating to the recovery of possession of any immovable property”. Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act uses phraseology; “suit or proceeding between a landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises”. After going through the averments made in the plaint and after hearing the learned Counsel for the applicant and the respondents, it is clear that, in order to decide the question involved, the averments made in the plaint shall have to be read as a whole. The same will have to be interpreted to find out whether it is a “suit relating to recovery of possession of any immovable property or any premises”. It may also require resolution of the disputed question. In view of this, the suit cannot be dismissed as barred by the said provisions of the Act, at this stage. Application (Exh.10) under Section 9-A, Order VII r/w Sec. 151 C.P.C. was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the trial Court. The revision application therefore is dismissed. All the objections raised are kept open. It is, however, made clear that the observations made by the trial Court in para 16 shall not come in the way of the parties while deciding the issue at the stage of final hearing of the suit. JUDGE wwl