T.V. Nalawade ORDER
T.V. Nalawade, J.
1. The petition is filed to challenge the judgment and order of Revision No. 244/2015, which was pending before the learned Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. The revision was filed against the order made by the learned Deputy Collector, Aurangabad in Rent Application No. 1/2014. The proceeding is dismissed by the authority in revision by holding that it is not tenable before the competent authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Both the sides are heard.
2. Under the leave and licence agreement made in the year 2007, the petitioners had given their property bearing plot Nos. 1, 4 and 26 situated at Shahanurwadi Chowk, Aurangabad for the period of five years. Under the agreement, there are some terms, giving right to the party to extend the 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. In view of the points involved in the present matter, other terms and conditions of the agreement are not discussed.
3. In the proceeding which was filed under the provisions of sections 24 r/w. 42 of the Act, the licensee filed application contending that the competent authority created under the Act has no jurisdiction over the matter as the premises was given to the licensee for running school and it was not given for residential purpose. The learned Deputy Collector, the competent authority created under the Act, rejected the application of the present respondent by holding that there was jurisdiction to the competent authority. This decision is set aside by the learned Additional Commissioner and it is held that as the premises is given to run the school under the licence, there is no jurisdiction to the competent authority.
4. This Court has carefully gone through all the provisions of the Act to see the scheme of the Act. The scheme shows that in the State, where there are Small Causes Courts, jurisdiction is given to Small Causes Court and where there is no Small Causes Court, the jurisdiction is given to the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division. Even if there are Courts, the matters would lie before the competent authority created under the Act, u/s. 40 of the Act for subject matters mentioned in Chapter VIII of the Act. The Small Causes Court and the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division will not have jurisdiction if the jurisdiction is specifically given to the competent authority under the Act. If there is no such authority established by the State Government, then there would be the jurisdiction in respect of those subject matters also to the Small Causes Court or to the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, as the case may be. The relevant provisions are being quoted hereinafter.
5. In section 7 (1) of the Act, 'competent authority' is defined and it says that 'competent authority' means the competent authority appointed under section 40 of the Act. For the present matter, the provisions of Chapter VII and VIII of the Act are relevant and the remaining provisions for other special categories need not be considered. In section 33 (1), which is a part of Chapter VII of the Act, it is made clear that the jurisdiction of Courts (Small Causes Court and Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division) given under section 3........