High Court of Bombay

Darshansing Indarsing Sodhi & Anr. vs. Podar Education and Sports Trust Through Its Managing Trustee Pawan Podar & Anr.

MANU/MH/1982/2016

03.10.2016

Tenancy

Jurisdiction specifically given to competent authority under Act bars lower courts jurisdiction

In facts of present case, under leave and licence agreement made in year 2007, Petitioners had given their property situated at Shahanurwadi Chowk, Aurangabad for period of five years. Under agreement, there are some terms, giving right to party to extend period and there are also terms and conditions that licensee will be liable to pay compensation, if licensee continues possession, when there is no continuation of licence period. Additional Commissioner held that as premises is given to run school under licence, there is no jurisdiction to competent authority.

As per scheme of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, Small Causes Court and Court of Civil Judge Junior Division will not have jurisdiction, if jurisdiction is specifically given to competent authority under Act. If there is no such authority established by State Government, then there would be the jurisdiction in respect of those subject matters also to Small Causes Court or to Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, as case may be.

Section 41 (c) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Act shows that only if premises is given for residence purpose under licence, matter will fall under Chapter VIII of Act. In that case, only competent authority will have jurisdiction and Court of Small Cause or Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division will not have jurisdiction. As in present matter, admittedly premises was given to present Respondent to run educational institution, it was not given for residence purpose and so, subject matter does not fall under provision of Chapter VIII of the Act. Provision of Section 43 (4) of Act shows the restriction on rights of licensee and necessity for licensee to seek permission, leave of competent authority to defend proceeding filed before competent authority.

As subject matter itself does not fall under Chapter VIII of Act, dismissing present Petition, Bombay High Court held that Additional Commissioner had not committed any error in allowing revision and dismissing proceeding filed before competent authority.

Relevant

Sections 41 (c ), 43 (4) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999

Tags : Competent authority Jurisdiction

Share :