Bombay High Court
SEEMA AMBADAS HUNDEKAR ALIAS MRS. SEEMA RAJU GUNJALversusMEHMOOD MEHENDI KHAN
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The civil revision application is dismissed, affirming the trial court's order rejecting the Rule 11 application.
Summary
The respondent filed a suit in the Small Causes Court, Pune, under Section 15(1) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, claiming unlawful eviction from a property. The applicant, who claimed to have transferred possession to the respondent via leave‑and‑license agreements, moved a pre‑suit application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC alleging lack of cause of action, bar on the suit and lack of jurisdiction. The trial court rejected the application on 13 February 2024, holding that jurisdictional and maintainability issues must be decided on the merits based on evidence. The applicant challenged this order by filing a civil revision under Section 115 of the CPC. The appellate court examined whether the trial court erred in its approach and concluded that the trial court correctly held that such questions are for the trial court to decide on evidence, and therefore dismissed the revision application.
Issues considered
- Whether the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act when the plaintiff was not in possession nor a landlord.
- Whether the suit was maintainable for lack of cause of action and being barred by law.
- Whether the order rejecting the Order VII Rule 11 application is appealable by way of civil revision under Section 115 CPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VII Rule 11(a), Order VII Rule 11(d), Section 115
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 — s. 15(1)
Subjects
- civil procedure
- jurisdiction
- maintainability
- rent control
- revision
- Order VII
- Rule 11
- Section 115 CPC
Judgment
Gitalaxmi 14-CRA-106-2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 106 OF 2026
SEEMA AMBADAS HUNDEKAR ALIAS MRS.
SEEMA RAJU GUNJAL ...APPLICANT
Versus
MEHMOOD MEHENDI KHAN ...RESPONDENT
Mr. Arvind Dhanraj Aswani, learned counsel for the Applicant.
None for the Respondent.
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 5th OCTOBER, 2026.
Per Court :
1. None present for the Respondent.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and
perused the record.
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present Civil Revision
Application are that Regular Civil Suit No. 166 of 2021 was filed by
the Respondent/Original Plaintiff before the learned Small Causes
Court, Pune, seeking declaration and injunction under Section 15(1)
of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, alleging unlawful
eviction/dispossession from the suit property bearing Survey No.
Page 1 of 3
th
5 OCTOBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi 14-CRA-106-2026.docx
107/1A, admeasuring 1700 sq. ft., situated at Chaturshingi, Pune.
The Applicant/Original Defendant challenged the maintainability of
the suit by filing an application below Exhibit-22 under Order VII
Rule 11(a) read with Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, contending, inter alia, that the plaint disclosed no cause of
action, that the suit was barred by law and that the Small Causes
Court lacked jurisdiction. The said application came to be rejected by
the Trial Court by order dated 13th February, 2024, which is
challenged in the present Civil Revision Application.
4. It is contended by the Applicant that the suit property was
initially occupied by her father-in-law-Genu Chimaji Gunjal, whose
possession devolved upon her husband-Raju Genu Gunjal under a
Will dated 13th November, 1998 and thereafter upon the Applicant
under a Will dated 6th December, 2012. The Applicant thereafter
entered into registered Leave and License Agreements with the
Respondent dated 2nd March, 2014 and 4th October, 2017, the latter
being valid up to 30th November, 2020. By letter dated 31st
December, 2020, the Applicant expressed her intention not to
continue the arrangement and according to the Applicant, the
Respondent vacated the suit property and handed over peaceful
possession on 15th April, 2021. However, the Respondent
subsequently filed the suit alleging forcible eviction without
specifying the date of alleged dispossession. The Applicant's
application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
Page 2 of 3
th
5 OCTOBER, 2026
Gitalaxmi 14-CRA-106-2026.docx
1908 (“CPC”) was thereafter argued on 13th February, 2024, but the
learned Trial Court rejected the same, leading to the present
challenge under Section 115 of the CPC.
5. Learned counsel submits that the Trial Court had no
jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the Plaintiff is not in possession
of the suit premises, nor he is the landlord.
6. Learned Trial Court has observed that the issues of
maintainability of the suit, cause of action and the jurisdiction have
to be decided on the merits and on the basis of evidence. I do not
see any error in it.
7. The jurisdiction to entertain the suit has to be decided on
perusal of the plaint. The contentions raised by the Applicant have
to be established by the evidence before the learned Trial Court.
8. In view of the above, Civil Revision Application stands
dismissed and disposed of accordingly.
[ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ]
Digitally signed
by GITALAXMI
GITALAXMI KRISHNA
KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR
KOTAWADEKAR Date:
2026.10.08
19:31:28 +0530
Page 3 of 3
th
5 OCTOBER, 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.