Shri Rajesh S. Patil For R. 1 To 5.

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 SECOND APPEAL NO. 170 OF 2010 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 380 OF 2010 Smt.Sunanda Vijay Vartha & ors. ... Appellants v/s Shri Ganesh Purshottam Bhatta & ors. ... Respondents Ms.Kalpana K. Shah for the appellants. Mr.R.S.Patil for respondent Nos.1 to 5. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 13TH APRIL, 2010 P.C.: The second appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the Civil Judge, Jr.Divn., Dahanu in R.C. Suit No. 24 of 2004 which has been confirmed by the District Judge at Palghar in Civil Appeal No.33 of 2006. Admittedly, the appellants were the tenants of the respondents in respect of a hut. A suit was filed by the landlord – the respondents herein, for evicting the tenants on Bsb the ground of illegal additions and alterations to the suit premises. The present suit was filed with respect to encroachment on the open place surrounding the hut. Both the Courts below have held that the appellants have encroached on the open space surrounding the premises occupied by them, and that, the encroachment would have to be removed. As regards the occupation or the tenancy in respect of the hut admeasuring 30 ft. x 12 ½ ft., both the Courts below have not passed any orders adverse to the appellants' interest. The learned advocate for the appellants submits that both the Courts below have erred in not considering the question of jurisdiction. She submits that since the appellants were the tenants of the respondents, the suit ought not to have been tried before the Civil Court but before the appropriate forum i.e. the Small Causes Court. On consideration of the impugned judgment, in my view, no substantial question of law arises in the present case. The question of jurisdiction would have arisen had the Civil Court decided the question whether the appellants were to be evicted from the hut. The suit and the relief granted by the Trial Court is restricted to the area outside the hut and, therefore, in my view, the question of jurisdiction does not arise. Second appeal stands dismissed along with the civil application. .....