MANSUKHLAL DHANRAJ JAIN AND ORS. ETC. versus EKNATH VITHAL OGALE ETC.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 996 · Decided: 08-02-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MOHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
\ 
A 
MANSUKHLAL DHANRAJ JAIN AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
r 
EKNATH VITHAL OGALE ETC. 
FEBRUARY 8, 1995 
B 
[S. MOHAN. AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 188~Section 41(1)-Court of 
small causes-Jurisdiction of-Phrase 'relating to recovery of posses-
~ 
sion-Scop~Licensee seeking permanent injunction against licensor 
c · restraining him from recovering possession by forcible means-Exclusive juris-
diction of Small Causes Courts. 
The appellants filed suit for permanent injunction on the ground 
that they were in possession of the suit shop. The respondent being tenant 
D 
of the suit premises put the appellants into possession thereof under an 
irrevocable licence • tenancy agreement and that due to some difference of 
opinion between the parties, the defendant started threatening the appel· 
lants that he would physically throw them out of the suit premises. The 
appellants moved an application for temporary injunction pending the 
suit. The relief was claimed on the basis that appellants were licensees and 
E the defendants-respondents were the licensors. 
The respondents raised an objection regarding the jurisdiction of 
• the City Civil court to entertain such a suit. Examining this contention as 
a preliminary issue, the City Civil Court held that the Court had jurisdic· 
tion to entertain such a suit for injunction. On revision, the Division Bench 
F of the High Court held that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to 
-+-' 
entertain the suit. Hence this appeal. 
The appellants contended that these were suits for injunction 
simplicitor for protecting their possession from the illegal threatened acts 
G of respondents and that the present suits did not satisfy conditions nos. 1 
& 3 for attracting section 41(1) of the Presidency Small Causes Courts 
Act, 1882. 
>-
The question raised for consideration was whether the suit filed by 
the plaintiff claiming the right to possess the suit premises as a licensee, 
H against defendant. alleged licensor was cognizable by the Court of Small 
996 
.. 
M.D. JAIN v. E.V. OGALE [MAJMUDAR, J.] 
997 
Causes as per Section 41(1) of the Act or whether the City Civil Court had A 
jurisdiction to entertain such a suit. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The phrase 'relating to recovery of possession' as found 
in Section 41 (1) of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act is comprehen-
B 
sive in nature and takes in its sweep all types of suits and proceedings 
which are concerned with the recovery of possession of suit property from 
the licensee and, therefore, suits for permanent injunction restraining the 
defendant from effecting forcible recovery of such possession from the 
licensee-plaintiff would squarP.ly be covered by the wide sweep of the said C 
phrase. Because of the non obstante clause contained in Section 41(1), even 
if a suit may otherwise lie before any other court, if such a suit falls within 
the sweep of Section 41(1), it can be entertained only by the Court of Small 
Causes. [1004-H, 1005-A, 1001-G] 
2. When a Plaintiff licensee seeks permanent injunction against the D 
defendant-licensor restraining the defendant from recovering the posses-
sion of the suit property by forcible means from the plaintiff, such a suit 
does have a bearing on or a concern with the recovery of possession of 
such property. [1003-E] 
3. In the instant case the Plaintiff claimed relief on the basis that E 
they were licensees on monetary consideration and the defendants were the 
licensors. These suits could lie within the exclusive jurisdiction of Small 
Cause Cou~s and the City Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to 
entertain such suits. [1002-F, 1005-B] 
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co. and Anr., [1985] 1 
SCR 432; Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., [1988] 2 
SCC 299; Babula/ Bhuramal andAnr. v. Nandram Shivram and Ors., [1959) 
SCR 367 and Nataraj Studios v. Navrang Studios, [1981] 2 SCR 466, relied 
on. 
F 
G 
Ambalal v. Narmada, (1963) 4 Guj L R 90; Ramkishore v. Vijay 
Bahadursingh AIR (1964) Born. 85 and Dattatreya Krishna v. Jairam Ganesh, 
AIR (1965) Born. 177, affirmed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4913 of 
1989 Etc. 
II 
998 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.3.88 of the Bombay High 
Court in C.R.A. No. 12 of 1985. 
· 
Vasdev Prakash (In-Person) for the Appellant. 
T.C. Sharma and Ms. Neelam Sharma for the Appellant in C.A. No. 
B 49

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.