Court asserts jurisdiction over unlawful dispossession claim, dismisses Cross Objections for plaint rejection
In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court has overturned a previous order by the City Civil Court, allowing Ambrosia Restaurants Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal and restoring its suit for possession to the City Civil Court. The legal battle involves Ambrosia Restaurants and respondents Sunita Dileep Nevatia and others, who allegedly dispossessed the restaurant from its licensed premises at Udyog Bhavan in Mumbai.
The dispute originated when Ambrosia Restaurants claimed it was unlawfully dispossessed from the premises on October 23, 2018, after entering into Leave and License Agreements with the respondents on October 7, 2017. The restaurant had filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking restoration of possession. Section 6 provides a summary remedy to recover possession for those dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law.
The City Civil Court had previously directed the return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, citing a lack of jurisdiction and directing the matter to the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai. The respondents contended that the suit was barred under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, which exclusively handles disputes concerning possession between licensors and licensees in Greater Mumbai.
However, Justice Farhan P. Dubash of the Bombay High Court emphasized the distinct nature of suits under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The court observed that such suits are possessory suits focusing on prior possession and dispossession rather than on contractual relationships like licensor-licensee. The court clarified that the City Civil Court does have jurisdiction over the matter, as the suit primarily concerns unlawful dispossession within six months of filing.
The judgment also dismissed the respondents' Cross Objections seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code, which argued that the suit was barred by law. The High Court pointed out that the plaint disclosed a statutory remedy under Section 6, filed within six months of the alleged dispossession, thus not barred by law.
The High Court's order reinstates the suit to the City Civil Court for further proceedings, ensuring that the trial court will adjudicate the merits of the case without being influenced by the previous order. The court also extended ad-interim protection for the appellants, preventing the respondents from creating third-party rights in the premises for six weeks post-restoration.
This judgment marks a pivotal moment in reinforcing the jurisdictional scope of City Civil Courts in cases of unlawful dispossession, providing clarity on the application of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act vis-a-vis Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act.
Bottom line:-
Specific Relief Act - Suit under Section 6 for restoration of possession due to unlawful dispossession - City Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit even if the parties are in a licensor-licensee relationship, as the dominant nature of the suit pertains to unlawful dispossession rather than enforcement of contractual rights under Leave and License Agreements.
Statutory provision(s): Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 6, Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 Section 41, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order VII Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order VII Rule 11(d), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 144
Ambrosia Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. v. Sunita Dileep Nevatia, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc id # 2941892
