R.S. Dalvi, J.@mdashThis notice of motion is taken out by the defendant for dismissing the suit for want of pecuniary jurisdiction as also for returning the plaint to proper Court under Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC.
2. It is argued on behalf of the defendant that the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction and the pecuniary jurisdiction claimed by the plaintiff is erroneous. The suit premises is part of flat No. 2 on the first floor of unit no. 5 in Premium Unit Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. at Four Bungalows, Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 053.
3. The parties are stated to have joint use of flat Nos. 1 and 2 constituting the entire unit No. 5 in the above society premises. The valuation by the plaintiff is for an area of 650 sq. ft. of area of the said flat. The defendant has shown the ready-reckoner value of 2013 when the suit was filed which would show the valuation of the suit flat to be Rs. 32.88 lakhs. The defendant claims that consequently this Court''s pecuniary jurisdiction is barred and the suit must be returned to the Bombay City Civil Court under Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC. The plaintiff''s valuation for 650 sq. ft. of premises is Rs. 5 crores the plaintiff has paid Court fees of Rs. 3 lakhs.
4. The plaintiff has sought mandatory relief by way of a direction for the said flat as also common garden. A reading of the plaint shows the entitlement of the plaintiff to the entire flat No. 2 on the first floor of unit No. 5. The plaintiff must value the entire flat of which he, in essence, seeks exclusive possession upon the discontinuance of the joint user by and between the parties as before. The valuation is, therefore, correct though not correctly worded. The plaintiff may amend the valuation clause of the plaint as advised. However the Court''s pecuniary jurisdiction is not barred. The reliefs prayed for in prayers (a) and (b) cannot be granted and are refused.
5. Though the application in that behalf is not made, it is also argued that this Court would not have the inherent jurisdiction to try the suit. It is contended that the Court of Small Causes at Bombay would be the Court having inherent jurisdiction since the suit is actually for recovery of possession of the suit premises from the defendant. Consequently the issue in that behalf is also framed and answered as follows:
Whether the Court''s inherent jurisdiction is barred.
6. Since the issue is only an issue of law with regard to the inherent jurisdiction, Counsel on behalf of defendant contended that only the averments in the plaint would be required to be seen and no oral evidence is required to be led.
7. The plaintiff''s suit is for a mandatory order of injunction restraining the defendant from using the suit premises and directing the defendant to remove his belongings, materials and articles lying in the suit premises and further directing him to shift permanently in the ground floor flat No. 1 in unit No. 5 Premium Unit Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. at Four Bungalows, Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 053. The suit is also for an injunction preventing the plaintiff from using the common garden in unit No. 5 of the aforesaid society. The plaintiff has claimed to be the owner of flat No. 2 on the first floor of unit No. 5 of the above society. The defendant No. 2 is the owner of flat No. 1 on the ground floor of unit No. 5 in the said society. The defendant is the elder brother of the plaintiff. Both purchased their respective flats in above 1990. They both have been living in unit No. 5 since the purchase. They have however not lived separately in flat No. 1 and flat No. 2. Both parties have had joint use and occupation of the entire unit No. 5. Such joint use and occupation is not only averred by the plaintiff, but admitted by the defendant.
8. Consequently the parties had modified the user of the premises to suit their requirements as the joint family living together. This modification is shown in the plan Exhibit-E to the plaint. In the ground floor flat one bedroom has been converted into a kitchen. Consequently the kitchen and that bedroom have been made an enlarged common kitchen. Consequently there is no bedroom in the ground floor flat which has been purchased by the defendant. The defendant has been using one bedroom in the plaintiff''s flat as shown in the their plan Exhibit-E. The defendant is also stated to have put up unauthorized construction and converted an open area into another room being occupied by him and his family members. The defendant has claimed that the plaintiff has put up an unauthorized construction and has called upon the plaintiff to remove it, which the plaintiff agrees to do. The plaintiff has shown that the first floor flat accordingly has only bedrooms. Consequently the parties and their families have lived in unit No. 5 jointly using and occupying the living room, kitchen and garden on the ground floor and bedrooms on the first floor.
9. The parties have had disputes since the last few years. The defendant has excluded the plaintiff from entering into the common kitchen after calling upon the plaintiff to discontinue the kitchen arrangements in his letter dated 22nd June, 2013. The plaintiff has, therefore, has no use of the kitchen. Consequently the plaintiff has called upon the defendant and his family members not to use the portion of the first floor flat used by him his bedrooms and to remove himself and his belongings therefrom and to shift to the ground floor flat alone.
10. Such a prayer is, therefore, not a prayer for recovery of possession from a gratuitous licencee as claimed by the defendant. It is the enforcement of the reciprocal obligation of the defendant upon the modification of the use and occupation of unit No. 5 by the defendant. The relief in that behalf can be granted only by the Civil Court.
11. A reading of the entire plaint would show that the plaintiff has never claimed juridical possession or be entitled to possession of the suit flat. Though he was put in possession of the suit flat No. 2 by his Vendor at the time of purchase, in paragraph 4 of the plaint the plaintiff has averred that the parties agreed to purchase two flats for the family members to stay together. In paragraph 5 of the plaint the plaintiff has shown the user of the kitchen and the room in the suit flat as also the user of the garden and the parking space thus:
The plaintiff states that since the kitchen on the ground floor have been use by the parties in common, the kitchen on the first floor have been used by the plaintiff as a room. The garden and parking space was used by the plaintiff and defendant jointly in common. The plaintiff states that the living room on the first floor have been used by the family member of the Defendant.
The plaintiff states that the said unauthorized room has been in use, occupation of the defendant and his family members.
The plaintiff states that since the kitchen on the ground floor have been use by the parties in common, the kitchen on the first floor have been used by the plaintiff as a room. The garden and parking space was used by the plaintiff and defendant jointly in common. The plaintiff states that the living room on the first floor have been used by the family member of the Defendant.
The plaintiff states that the said unauthorized room has been in use, occupation of the defendant and his family members.
12. The plaintiff has further averred in the said para that the defendant is only in use and occupation of the unauthorized room in the first floor flat. The plaintiff has not claimed that the defendant is in possession of it, in paras 5 as well as 6 of the plaint.
13. The plaintiff has averred in para 9 of the plaint that he desired to have separate and exclusive possession of flat No. 2 on the first floor of unit No. 5 purchased by him. That was only because and upon the defendant disallowing the plaintiff to enter into the kitchen in the ground floor flat purchased by the defendant by constructing a sliding glass door in the common lobby at the entrance of the living room as averred in para 12 of the plaint. Consequently the direction for the defendant and his family members to remove themselves from the premises is not upon the plaintiff''s case that the defendant was a gratuitous licencee; but upon his case that the parties were in joint use of the entire unit No. 5 which has come to be discontinued by disallowing the plaintiff from the kitchen. This has been averred specifically in para 14 of the plaint thus:
The plaintiff states that due to the same the plaintiff and his family members are facing hardship and could not even take a glass of drinking water from 4th July, 2013, as the defendant has restrained the entry of the plaintiff and his family members to the common kitchen.
14. The parties have admittedly entered into a MOU for settlement their disputes on 2nd April, 2012. The relevant clause of the MOU relating to the suit premises being unit no. 5 described as a bungalow therein specifically shows that the parties are staying together more than 20 years. The parties agreed that if they cannot stay together in unit no. 5 they would have to shift their respective premises. The plaintiff sent a notice to the defendant on 29th April, 2013. The defendant replied by his letter dated 22nd June, 2013 in which the defendant admitted the joint user and described the joint user of the parties. The defendant called upon the plaintiff to forthwith discontinue the kitchen arrangement which was allowed to the plaintiff "only as a family member". The defendant admitted that the occupier of flat No. 2 will be entitled to one bedroom, living room and kitchen along with toilets. The defendant also called upon the plaintiff to carry out his directions "so that I can make necessary arrangement in my flat". In paragraph 14 of the letter the defendant called upon the plaintiff to comply with the requisition of discontinuance of usage of my kitchen.
15. Consequently it is seen that the averments in the plaint and the lis between the parties is with regard to the discontinuance of the joint user by separate and independent and exclusive user of the suit premises.
16. The relief sought by the plaintiff in the suit in the nature of an exchange as a transfer of property as envisaged u/s 118 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. Exchange is defined u/s 118 thus:
Chapter VI
of Exchanges
118. "Exchange" defined-When two persons mutually transfer the ownership of one thing for the ownership of another, neither thing or both things being money only, the transaction is called an "exchange.
A transfer of property in completion of an exchange can be made only in manner provided for the transfer of such property by sale.
Such a transaction is, therefore, between two separate owners and not between the owner as a landlord and as tenant or licencee.
The rights and liabilities of the parties to the extent are set out in Section 120 of the TP Act thus:
120. Rights and liabilities of parties-Save as otherwise provided in this Chapter, each party has the rights and is subject to the liabilities of a seller as to that which he gives, and has the rights and is subject to the liabilities of a buyer as to that which he takes.
The determination of the relief amongst two equal owners who are required to exchange their properties or for reliefs incidental thereto would, therefore, be only within the Civil Court''s jurisdiction.
17. Such a suit is not for recovery of possession from a gratuitous licensee. That would have been if the part or full of the plaintiff''s premises was Simpliciter given to the defendant for his use, occupation and exclusive possession. That being not so the relief prayed for by the plaintiff is, in essence, the relief of partitioning a property in joint use of the parties. Such a relief can be granted only by the Civil Court. This suit is only for excluding a family member from joint use of the entire suit premises and simultaneously allowing him separate use of a part of the suit premises. In fact since the parties lived as family members jointly using the entire suit premises, the Civil Court''s jurisdiction would not be barred even if the suit was for total exclusion of the family member therefrom. (See
18. The Small Causes Court, Bombay cannot try a suit for recovery of use and occupation of the premises if the possession was not granted to the defendant. Consequently the ruling in the case of
19. The Court''s inherent jurisdiction is not seen to be barred. The issue relating to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court is, therefore, answered in the negative.
20. The notice of motion is dismissed.
