Judgment :- P.C. : 1. The preliminary issue of inherent jurisdiction of the Court is raised. The issue has been framed thus: Whether the present suit is maintainable in this Court as it is between landlord and tenant / trespasser. 2. The inherent jurisdiction of the Court is, therefore, to be determined. Plaintiff No.3 and defendant No.3 have led oral as well as documentary evidence. 3. The issue of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court has to be decided upon the averments in the plaint. The oral evidence, if any, would, therefore, only be required to be explanatory. It would be led to explain the averments made by the plaintiff or to confront the plaintiff with those averments for explaining the true nature of the averments in the plaint. 4. The initial suit was filed by two flat purchasers against the owner of the plot of land, the developer of the suit property and another person who is stated to be the trespasser and who claims to be a tenant. Upon the registration of the society it was added as plaintiff No.3. Thereafter the suit is stated to have been settled between the flat purchasers and the society on the one hand and the owner of the property and the developer on the other. The suit, therefore, remains only by and between the society and the said tenant / trespasser. Consequently the above issue shows that the suit is between landlord and tenant / trespasser. 5. The averments with regard to defendant No.3 (the tenant / trespasser) are thus: (1) In paragraph 1 of the plaint it is averred that the defendant No.3 claims tenancy rights in respect of a structure of the area of 835 Sq.ft. under an alleged agreement dated 17th January, 1989 entered into by and between defendant No.1 and defendant No.3. (2) In paragraph Nos.7 to 10 of the plaint certain correspondence between the association of flat purchasers prior to the plaintiff No.3 society being registered and defendant No.3 is set out relating to certain rights claimed by defendant No.3 and the replies given by the said association. (3) In paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the plaint it is averred that alleged tenancy agreement was forwarded by defendant No.3 to the secretary of the society. The said alleged tenancy agreement is interpreted. (3) In paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the plaint it is averred that alleged tenancy agreement was forwarded by defendant No.3 to the secretary of the society. The said alleged tenancy agreement is interpreted. It is further averred that in any event the alleged tenancy agreement would be subject to the agreement of sale between the developer and the flat purchasers who are the members of the said association. (4) Further in paragraph 11 of the plaint it is averred that the said alleged tenancy agreement is sham and bogus and not in conformity with the terms of the sale between the developer and flat purchasers. It is also averred that the said agreement is anti-dated and got up to defeat the plaintiff's rights. It is also averred that the defendant No.3 is deemed to have knowledge of the agreements entered into by developer with the flat purchasers and is bound by them and that the said agreement is illegal, invalid, void and not binding upon plaintiff. (5) In paragraph 20 of the plaint it is averred that the defendant No.3 had knowledge of the agreements entered into by the flat purchasers with the developer and was bound by them. (6) Consequently in paragraph 21 of the plaint an injunction against defendant No.3 is sought. The averments in the plaint do not show that the suit is for recovery of possession from a tenant. 6. The plaintiff has claimed various reliefs against defendant No.3 aside from the main relief of specific performance against the owner and the developer under the proviso of Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA). The reliefs are claimed thus: 1. In prayer (b) of the plaint the plaintiff has sought perfection of its title in respect of the flats purchased by the flat purchasers and other tenants in the said building so as to effectively perform the agreements of sale by the developer with the flat purchasers and so as to pass the proper title in plaintiff No.3 as a co-operative society of the flat purchasers. 2. In prayer (f) of the plaint the plaintiff has sought declaration that the agreement between defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 which is alleged tenancy agreement is null and void and defendant No.3 has no right therefrom. 3. 2. In prayer (f) of the plaint the plaintiff has sought declaration that the agreement between defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 which is alleged tenancy agreement is null and void and defendant No.3 has no right therefrom. 3. In prayer (g) of the plaint the plaintiff has claimed recovery of the possession of the premises in occupation of the suit premises described in the alleged tenancy agreements. 4. In prayer (h) of the plaint the plaintiff has claimed mesne profits. 5. In prayer (i) of the plaint the plaintiff has sought to set aside and cancel the said agreement entered into between defendant No.1 and defendant No.3. 6. In prayer (j) of the plaint the plaintiff has claimed injunction against defendant No.3 from entering upon or altering the suit premises. 7. The plaintiff, therefore, does not claim recovery of possession of the suit premises as landlord from its tenant. The plaintiff has claimed recovery of possession from defendant No.3 as trespasser in the property of defendant No.3. 8. Plaintiff No.3 claims through defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 was the owner of the suit property. Defendant No.1 sought to develop the suit property. The agreement of development would show precisely the description of the suit property at the time of its execution. Since that agreement is entered into by defendant No.1 and defendant No.2, it is not in possession of the plaintiff and thus the plaintiff had not produced it in the plaint. Pursuant to that agreement flat purchase agreements as required under MOFA have been entered into. One such agreement is annexed at Exh.B2. That agreement is of 1984. Hence development agreement would be prior to 1984. 9. The alleged tenancy agreement is dated 17th January, 1989. The plaintiff, therefore, claims that defendant No.1 has wrongly entered into such agreement with a stranger who has trespassed upon the suit property which is to be conveyed to the plaintiff under MOFA. The conveyance would have to perfect the plaintiff's title. The plaintiff's title would be perfected in terms of initial agreement of development in which defendant No.2 as the developer would develop the suit property and convey the same to defendant No.1 or its nominee, plaintiff No.3 being its nominee. The plaintiff has obtained the conveyance. The conveyance has not granted to the plaintiff the title in respect of the premises claimed by defendant No.3. 10. The plaintiff has obtained the conveyance. The conveyance has not granted to the plaintiff the title in respect of the premises claimed by defendant No.3. 10. The claim of the plaintiff for perfection of its title and for declaration of nullity of the agreement is not the claim of the plaintiff as landlord of defendant No.3. The recovery of possession sought by the plaintiff is, therefore, not from the plaintiff's tenant but from a trespasser. 11. Since both parties have led oral and documentary evidence it is relied upon by counsel on behalf of defendant No.3 to show the Court that the conveyance makes a reference to defendant No.3 as a tenant in an annexure showing the list of flat purchasers after which two tenants including defendant No.3 have been shown. The rectification of the conveyance shows the same annexure. The conveyance is entered into after the suit. It is not upon conveyance that the plaintiff as sued. The admission, if any, of the plaintiff is, therefore, the defence of defendant No.3 in the suit. The averments in the plaint do not show any such admission or the conveyance. 12. Defendant No.3 has also sought to rely upon rent receipts. That is also his part of his defence on merits to resist the plaintiff's claim for recovery of possession from the defendant as a trespasser. 13. Consequently the defendant would show that he is not a trespasser but a tenant. If that is shown the suit would be dismissed and the recovery of possession would not be granted. However, it is not plaintiff's claim that the defendant is its tenant and hence the plaintiff cannot be taken to be landlord who has sued for recovery of possession from its tenant. 14. Consequently upon seeing the averments in the plaint together with the oral and documentary evidence relied upon by defendant No.3, the suit is not shown to be between landlord and tenant. It is shown to be between an owner and a trespasser. Consequently the Civil Court's jurisdiction cannot be and is not barred. Hence the present suit is maintainable as suit between an owner and a trespasser. Consequently the preliminary issue is answered in the affirmative holding that the suit is maintainable in this Court, this Courts jurisdiction not being barred. 15. Hence the suit shall proceed. 16. Consequently the Civil Court's jurisdiction cannot be and is not barred. Hence the present suit is maintainable as suit between an owner and a trespasser. Consequently the preliminary issue is answered in the affirmative holding that the suit is maintainable in this Court, this Courts jurisdiction not being barred. 15. Hence the suit shall proceed. 16. Issues in the suit arising between the plaintiff No.3 and defendant No.3 on merits are, therefore, required to be framed. 17. The issues are framed as under : 1. Whether defendant No.3 proves that he has validly entered into the tenancy agreement with defendant No.1 on 17th January, 1989. 2. Whether the said agreement is binding upon the plaintiff. 3. What relief, if any, is plaintiff No.3 entitled to? 18. The defendant has accepted and admitted that the plaintiff as the owner of the suit property and that plaintiff claims its rights from and through defendant No.1. Hence the plaintiff does not require to prove its title. Defendant No.3 claims to have entered into tenancy agreement with defendant No.1. Defendant No.3 would, therefore, have to prove the execution and the validity of the tenancy agreement. Defendant No.3, therefore, has right to begin the evidence. Defendant No.3 shall file his affidavit of evidence as also affidavit of documents, if any. 19. Suit is adjourned to 9th July, 2015 for considering admissibility of the documents of the defendant No.3. Part heard. First on board.